Misplaced Pages

Request for investigation

I've filed a a request for investigation and Checkuser request in light of this -Zero 07:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please do keep track of MM Zero, Mongo. His vandalism is keeping the articles he's damaging from coming forward, and it's getting aggravating. He's so far ripped out the spoiler tags from over a hundred articles, tags that rightfully belong there, and he hasn't given any legitimate explanation for it. His vandalism shouldn't be tolerated here on Misplaced Pages. 24.19.96.143 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my talkpage, MONGO. -Zero 00:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And so have I. -- Daniel Davis 03:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I get it. This has been a consistent editting habbit since the earlier editting days. You've previously been warned about this falsely callling edits "vandalism", what the definition of vandalism is , trolling and general misconception and blanking . I had respect for this editor and generally believed his edits to be in good faith. That respect was misplaced. -Zero 11:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that archives of my own page are irrelevant to this present discussion, as well as the fact that you're taking those discussions out of context (as well as the fact that the majority of all of my prior conflicts were with a previous editor who was using my personal information), which is peppered by uncalled for personal attacks, your comments on this matter are becoming less and less important to me. If you're trying to dredge up the past, YOU have a history of this kind of behavior- reverting others good faith contributions with only the vague edit summary of "rv", so accusing me of such a thing (I've had maybe five conflict total over an edit history that spans over a year- I've noticed you've completely ignored any positive comments that were ever given to me) stinks of hypocrisy. I've also noticed that you've put this on Mongo's page instead of your own- which of course means you're attempting to influence him into "joining" you in attacking me. Personal attacks like "Although I appreciated your flawed reasoning" "I'm not amused by your abuse of random IP addresses" are most certainly rude to say the least and completely inaccurate. -- Daniel Davis 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. In your previous summary , you noted this was in response to harassment and threats. If this is the case, I deeply apologize and you have my support in this. The only problem depicted is that of false accusations. Vandalism is a purposeful attempt to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. This statement made in various edit summeries was purposely made in knowledge of this. Yes, I'm sorry this fellow's actions has harmed you and your family. This does not excuse that of your comments. If you feel offended by my request for a third opinion on this then I apologize and I'll keep this in mind. But my edits certianly are not vandalism and this is not the first accusation of yours to an editor when this has been falsely made. If my edits on this dispute were vandalism and as destructive as composed, I would have been blocked long ago and wouldn't have such a highly regarded and successful editting history . Just a thought. -Zero 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the barnstar. God bless. -- Huysman File:Poisoned Icon.jpg 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• They should lay off Norm Coleman. So what if his staffers wrote his wiki-article? He brought hockey back to Minneapolis-St. Paul. They should cut him some slack. Wahkeenah 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Badsy

Hey MONGO, I was hoping you could keep an eye on this guy today. He was dumping commercial links to t-shirts at Cafe Press into articles earlier. I warned him to stop, but am now running out the door to catch a flight and can't blockslap him if it comes to that. Could you take a glance at his (post-13:08-o'clock) contribs a couple times today and make sure he's heeded my warning? Thanks a bunch, JDoorjam Talk 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Dear MONGO: I noticed that you have given me a warning on my Talk Page. You did NOT point out specific things that I did that violate Misplaced Pages policy, probably because I have NOT violated any policy. I also noticed that made a VALID sourced and referenced edit to the Ward Churchill article. Lulu, your friend, deleted. You then protected the Ward Churchill page and will the claim that the sourced and referenced material is potentially libelous, which of course it is not. However, I understand that you believe that it should be discussed, but protecting the page without you discussing the underlining issue seems to me a bullying tactic. Also, the warning to me on my Talk Page seems to me to be another bullying tactic. In neither of the these situations are you discussing WHY you believe that sourced and referenced material is potentially libelous you are just attacking me personally. You have been attacking me personally since I started work on the Ward Churchill article. Those personal attacks are in the edit history. I know that you are an administrator, but you are NOT acting toward me in a civil tone and you constantly engaging in bullying tactics towward me, simply because you do not agree with the edits in which I have been engaging. Now, you may disagree with my edits, but they do NOT violated Misplaced Pages policy, so I would suggest that you engage in civil behavior toward me. Either you or Lulu reverse each and every edit that I make, even though my edits do not violate any Misplaced Pages policies. You are constantly stating that I violating Misplaced Pages policy, but you never give specific examples of it, just warnings and threats. Please stop the uncivil behavior. Now, you have used your power as an adminstrator to protect the page, even though you have NOT provided any evidence whatsoever that the sourced and referenced material that I put in the Ward Churchill article is potentially libelous. Just stating that it is libelous do not make it so. Please provide evidence for this conclusion of yours and stop using the protection power as your personal bullwhip. You have stated that since I once stated that I believe that you and Lulu are POV pushers that you believe that I violated Misplaced Pages policy. However, you and Lulu call me a POV pusher all the time and I don't see warnings from you to Lulu. Why is this? Could it be that since both you and Lulu have made a agreement to back each other up on any edits in the Ward Churchill article, you overlook Lulu's behavior??? I believe the answer to be yes. Stop being an abusive adminstrator. -- --70114205215 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I believe the first step in settling disputes is:

== First step: talk to the other parties involved ==

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Misplaced Pages policies.

This is my attempt to start down the road of stopping your abuse toward me. Thank you. -- --70114205215 21:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The following what you stated to me on my Talk Page: There has been no abuse...I can cite plenty of evidence that you have been condescending, insulting and just plain rude. Constantly harping about editors instead of the content they support, is a violation, and that is policy.--MONGO 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear MONGO: I can cite plenty of evidence that where Lulu has been condescending, insulting and just plain rude to me (those incidents are in the edit history) and you have not once attempted to make Lulu stop his condescending, insulting and just plain rude behavior toward me. As a matter of fact, you have been supportive of, by ignoring, Lulu's condescending, insulting and just plain rude behavior. Lulu has called me a troll and you did nothing. You have been supportive of Lulu's behavior which violates Misplaced Pages policy and you have actually joined it. Please review it here: . You can review where you state that I should not call Lulu's behavior POV pushing here: Please stop the abusive behavior. Please explain where you have attempted to stop Lulu in his behavior toward me. -- --70114205215 22:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Dear MONGO: You have made a claim that I have attempted to put "potentially libellous" (your spelling) into the Ward Churchill article. Please explain when and where I did that. I would like to have your explanation added to the edit history. As far as I can tell you have made a grave claim against my editing, but you have not provided any evidence to back up your claim. It seems to me to be another example of bullying behavior on your part. Please go into detail when and where I did this, you made the claim, please back it up. -- --70114205215 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a biography...it is important to gain concensus (something you do not have) before you post information that may be highly inflammatory, no matter how well it is cited,. As I mentioned on your talk page, if you don't stop with this "Dear" crap, I am going to block you and end your condescending tone.--MONGO 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The following was posted on my Talk Page: How's this for bullying...you refer to me as "dear" one more time, I'm going to block you...got it?--MONGO 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) This comment and one above it is an example of how Misplaced Pages administrators believe that it is ok for them and people like Lulu who agree with them to bully and push around those that do not agree with them. And there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Simply amazing. --- --70114205215 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a biography. And the FACT that Churchill has been recommended for firing by a committee at the University of Colorado is a FACT that should be in the introduction of Churchill's biography. Even if he is not ultimately fired from the only real job that Churchill has had in his life then it has to be in the top two or three things worth mentioning about him--regardless of how you want to bully around anyone that does not agree with you. -- --70114205215 22:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not "bullying" you...I am telling you what policy states. If you make one more accusation about me and not about the content of the argument...see WP:CIVIL. Read the policy.--MONGO 23:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to stop you from unfairly blocking me. I trying to make the argument that you are asking me to do things that you are not asking Lulu to do. Now, you are stating that if I point out this unfair treatment then you will block me just for pointing it out! Why don't you suggest that we simply agree to focus on the issues of the article and Lulu will stop calling me a POV pusher and you will stop stating that I am engaing in hate mail and I will only talk about issues in the article and then can take it from there. Why don't we put all of this former stuff behind us and just work on the article. I will stop calling Lulu a POV pusher if he stops calling me one. Its just that simple and you should try to solve the dispute in the most simple way possible because as far as I can tell from reading the Misplaced Pages policies on dispute resolution then we should attempt to solve these issues in the simplest way possible. We should not try to push the dispute to mediation or arbitration, etc. Also, as far as I can tell from the Misplaced Pages policy on civility you should try to work with me and not simply reverse anything that I do. The underling issue is edits to the Ward Chuchill article. Go ahead and block me. I have been trying to resolve this in a most reasonable manner. But you blocking me does not agree with my understanding of the Misplaced Pages policy. How can someone be blocked just for attempting to stop you from blocking me??? How is that fair? Why aren't you attempting as a Wikipedian administrator to follow the Misplaced Pages guidelines as to dispute resolution, where we attempt to talk this out. I quoted the alternative of talking to the person before resorting to mediation and arbitration, but I now learn that if I try to talk to you concerning a dispute I have with you, then you will block me. Let's just agree to stop calling each other POV pushers, and stop telling everyone new that comes to the Ward Churchill page that I am a POV pusher (as Lulu did here: ) ----70114205215 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:70114205215

Please block this user as he is violating to Misplaced Pages Username Policy, his name is a random sequence of numbers.--GorillazFan Adam 23:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have not read the Misplaced Pages policy concerning dispute resolution. You should attempt to talk to me first on my Talk Page. That is what the Misplaced Pages policy on Dispute Resolution asks for. You went to my talk page and posted and you waited FOUR minutes before you ran to MONGO's page. How about the Misplaced Pages policy of good faith. Four minutes is not good faith. --- --70114205215 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a dispute buddy, your username has to be blocked regardless.--GorillazFan Adam 00:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, buddy. I have already changed the name. Ok, buddy? --- --HouseByTheLake 00:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats better, now go and edit to your hearts content.--GorillazFan Adam 00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Er... what? You think your username magically "changes" because you edit your sig? I'm afraid it doesn't. It's still a random sequence of digits. Please request a bureaucrat to change your username right now before the account is blocked. This is the place to do it. Bishonen | talk 01:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

I did exactly what the policy suggests Misplaced Pages:Changing username: "Instead of changing your name, you can change your preferences to change your signature. This will change your "public appearance" on talk pages without requiring costly changes to the database. All your edits will be attributed to the same user." Thank you. -- --HouseByTheLake 01:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I have explained it again on your page. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the rainbow

Thank you very much for the most beautiful of all the birthday piccies, MONGO. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

My (Mtz206) RfA

Empire State and Chrysler

They do give an impression of height, yes? :) Wahkeenah 03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say. I had the chance to get on the outside observation deck at the World Trade Center, and that was really impressive. But as far as real height, the drop off the north face of Grand Teton is over 4,000 feet...and in places, almost as sheer as those buildings.--MONGO 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I lifted that quote from an anecdote in The Empire State Building Book, by Jonathan Goldman. I road up the glass elevator on the CN Tower once, and that was impressive. I was on that outdoors observation deck of the Empire State when I was a kid, and that was very impressive. When I think about Philippe Petit tightrope walking between the WTC towers, that's way beyond impressive. I wouldn't have tried that for any amount of money or airtime. But if you've climbed the "Big Breast" in Wyoming, I'm sure those other structures seem like blips. Wahkeenah 04:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to read that book. No glass elevators for me! NO tightropes either...then there was that fellow who climbed up the side of one of the WTC towers after he designed some kind of device he could wedge between the steel shell seams. User:RyanFreisling has been kind enough to take the images of the buildings and other scenes from NYC...and my favorite is the Chrysler building. Best wishes!--MONGO 08:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've visited the observation deck on the Empire State Building a bunch of times - just breathtakingly beautiful. The 'Top of the Rock' observation deck is likewise gorgeous (that's where the wide-view shots were taken from). The WTC were (and remain) my favorite buildings, despite the controversy about their design (boxy? ugly? No!). I used to go to the courtyard between the two towers with my lunch, lie on the ground with my feet touching the beveled corner of one of the towers, and stare straight up - at what looked like a walkway to the sky. I love the CN Tower as well - went there as a kid. I'll post some more photos from my collection when I've got a few moments to rub together. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear some positive personal experiences and perspective of the WTC towers. I was never up close to them, I just saw what they looked like from a distance, how they dominated lower Manhattan like a couple of gigantic saltine cracker boxes. When someone told me that a plane had hit the towers, before it became obvious what was going on on that horrible day, my immediate sarcastic reaction was, "It must have been an architecture critic." Wahkeenah 14:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that early on, after the WTC was recently built, that someone remarked that they looked like the boxes that the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building must have been in. I'm impressed with some of the design changes to the new buildings that will be going up at the WTC site...Freedom Tower, 200, 175, and 150 Greenwich Street...but I'd be most happy to simply return to 9/10/2001 and have 9/11 just never have happened...that the feds had caught these people, before they ever boarded those planes, and that thousands of people would still be alive, and their families wouldn't have had to watch them die such a horrific death.--MONGO 15:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wahkeenah 15:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The WTC towers were very late 60's to early 80's construction style...I know architects have a name for the style of that period of large building design, but do not know what that is. I liked the WTC towers for their uniformity and monolithic nature...they were beautiful in their simplicity...maybe Ryan Freisling knows what that period was called.--MONGO 15:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably more specific than the generic "postmodern". Couldn't say. Wahkeenah 16:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard them described as 'modernist', with strong 'bauhaus' influence. However, there's a very interesting article about the WTC's architectural design's origins - and an intriguing hypothesis about how they may have factored into Laden's possible motivations here:

The World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family—and a leading practitioner of an architectural style that merged modernism with Islamic influences. {...}

The shimmering filigree is the mark of the holy. According to Oleg Grabar, the great American scholar of Islamic art and architecture, the dense filigree of complex geometries alludes to a higher spiritual reality in Islam, and the shimmering quality of Islamic patterning relates to the veil that wraps the Qa'ba at Mecca. After the attack, Grabar spoke of how these towers related to the architecture of Islam, where "the entire surface is meaningful" and "every part is both construction and ornament." A number of designers from the Middle East agreed, describing the entire façade as a giant "mashrabiya," the tracery that fills the windows of mosques. {...}

Having rejected modernism and the Saudi royal family, it's no surprise that Bin Laden would turn against Yamasaki's work in particular. He must have seen how Yamasaki had clothed the World Trade Center, a monument of Western capitalism, in the raiment of Islamic spirituality. Such mixing of the sacred and the profane is old hat to us—after all, Cass Gilbert's classic Woolworth Building, dubbed the Cathedral to Commerce, is decked out in extravagant Gothic regalia. But to someone who wants to purify Islam from commercialism, Yamasaki's implicit Mosque to Commerce would be anathema. To Bin Laden, the World Trade Center was probably not only an international landmark but also a false idol.

Hmm! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I might have been onto something... maybe the attack was done by an architecture critic. Wahkeenah 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I can see the symbolicness of why the WTC towers would have been prime candidates, based on that commentary, to folks like Bin laden. The attacks were not just a design to terrorize...they were also Bin laden's rejection of the western world and a sort of David vs. Goliath issue, in that the U.S. is percieved by many in the third world as the oppressor. Governments act in what form that will best serve their own perpetuation, and in this, the people of the third world may especially see the U.S. as the oppressors. There are many examples where this train of thought is indeed fact, as the U.S. does not oftentimes get involved, unless it's vital interests are at stake.--MONGO 19:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda rewrite

Based on the comments of Mr. Billion, I have completed another rewrite of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Taking the advice of CSTAR, I am putting the new rewrite on the Talk page first and asking you to put in any comments using the footnote facility ( ) to note each one of the comments you have some issue with. Also, if there is some comment you think needs a citation, make a note of that as well. I truly do want this article to be accurate and face reality.RonCram 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I like it! I was going to respond to them and tell them to go away but I think I prefer your way. Nice work :-) --Lord Deskana 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Images of the Worlds Greatest City

Apart from the fact that if WP:NPOV applied to User space, the photos would be clearly be of London, "World's" should have an apostrophe. Stephen B Streater 09:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New York, New York, a wonderful town; the Mets are up and the Yanks are down. Wahkeenah 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) (That could change, though).

Beavers

I'm reminded of this saying from many years ago: "Eat a beaver and save a tree." Wahkeenah 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Block Abuse

MONGO, given your ongoing content disputes with SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn you should not have been the one to block them. While these users HAVE in my opinion made 'personal attacks' against you... you have also done so against them. The line of where 'personal attacks' become disruptive enough to warrant a block is subjective, but in this case I largely agree with you that they had crossed it. HOWEVER, under no circumstances should you be the one making that decision. Which is why it is one of the VERY few things admins are specifically prohibitted from doing. --CBD 15:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I block all personal attacks...I can't seem to find anything that I have said that is a personal attack. In fact, though I posted the info about me being an employee of USDHS, they are misusing that almost to the point of which you should read. I encurage you to read the entire blocking policy and try to remind yourelf that I am not in a content dispute with the people you say I am. They are, single purpose editors, whose goal is to POV push nonsense conspiracy theory rhetoric into our article space, and they only listen to blocking and other very stern applications of our policies. I think they must think this is some kind of a blog...it most certainly isn't. Due to the misuse of the information I mentioned, and the manner in which they are "throwing it out there" could possibly be grounds for indefinite blocks. That would be a matter for arbcom to decide. I would remove the personal information I posted (which I only did to demonstrate that I do know a thing or two about the events of 9/11) is because the edit history for the talk page for the 9/11 attacks article would take a long time to reconstitute due to the vast number of edits, and by removing it, it just gives the conspiracy theorists the thought that I am covering something up. Had I know they would misuse the information I posted, I never would have posted it.--MONGO 15:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no matter how someone 'uses' personal information after you release it that can't be a violation of the 'posting personal details' policy unless they introduce details which you have not revealed yourself. Suggesting that this (or the 'POV pushing' you object to) is grounds for an indefinite block is not justified in my opinion. I do think that their implications amounted to 'personal attacks', but I have lower standards than most for what constitutes such (though I don't generally block for it). As to the rest, I'm sorry but you clearly ARE in a content dispute with these users when you say that they are trying to add "nonsense conspiracy theory rhetoric into our article space"... you are disputing the content they are trying to add. Ergo, 'content dispute'. The essential point is that you can't be described as anything like impartial on this page and these users, and thus should not be blocking everyone in sight - particlarly on subjective and disputed grounds. --CBD 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand...it isn't a content dispute. Pokipsy76 had been reverted by many editors, many. What part of that do you not understand? There is a point at which editors do exhaust the communities patience...and you and others are complete failing to assume any good faith on my part. Rfc's do end up sometimes going against those that file them for retribution...that is what this appears to be to me. Now you have wheel warred with my administrative action as well...I find your position untenable.--MONGO 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I'm sorry but I don't see what you are getting at. The fact that multiple parties were involved in the content dispute doesn't make it stop being a content dispute. To put it another way... even if there were a dozen people who agreed completely on "Some conspiracy theorists disagree" and only one person opposing (which definitely was NOT the case here) still it would absolutely without any question be a content dispute. I can't understand why you insist this isn't a content dispute... you disagreed about the content of the article. It is a content dispute. That's just... obvious. What am I missing? As to the rest - I have previously seen people routinely remove blocks placed by an involved admin and then reset such themselves as I did. Normally, I would not have blocked somene for 'personal attacks' without much more extensive efforts to resolve the situation peacefully... my removal and reblock here was done only to take you out of a conflict of interest you shouldn't be in. I apologize if that upsets you, but I don't think my action was improper. --CBD 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that you are employed by the U.S. Gov't, and actively engaged in combatting conspiracy theorists in various WTC-related articles, the suspicion that Uncle Sam might be rewarding you for this in some form or fashion is, in my opinion, a rather natural suspicion, and not a personal attack in and of itself. I would suggest that you refrain from blocking editors of these articles for reasons other than blatant vandalism (such as penis imagery), otherwise the "conflict of interest" suspicion is inevitable. Maybe the folks you're dealing with are crackpots and trolls, but that's neither here nor there. — Jun. 25, '06 <freak|talk>

Haha...their very nature of thought is a conspiracy. Don't tell me you are also so deluded. It is a personal attack if it is misused, and especially if while being blocked that they post the same misinformation using a different IP to evade the block. How dare you tell me to not block those that violate our policies! The 9/11 articles are not benign...they are real life events that impacted the lives of millions of people...the very nature of our purpose here at Misplaced Pages is to ensure quantifiable and well source facts are presented, not some crap from POV pushing conspiracy theorists.--MONGO 16:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget the "meta-conspiracy", i.e. the theory that all the various conspiracies discussed in the various conspiracy theories are emanating from one place... probably from the top-secret location that everyone knows about, "Area 51". Either there, or from Loch Ness. Wahkeenah 17:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

At the most basic level, you are counter-pushing your own POV. As (possibly circumstantial) evidence holds that you are employed by an agency whose credibility is endangered everytime somebody reads that shit (and I do mean shit by the way), reverting and blocking users for it only reinforces their suspicions about your motives, and it's not an appropriate use of administrator privileges. — Jun. 25, '06 <freak|talk>

I gather you are encouraging me to not edit those articles. That is exactly what they would love to see happen. I will continue to revert their nonsense and block as approved by the blocking policies.--MONGO 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not telling you not to edit. I'm not even telling you not to edit war, even. If you think something is wrong, revert it. Just don't attempt to be the boxer and the referee in the same fight. If you think you're being tag-teamed, request a checkuser. If you're in the mood to revert and block the same users for the same edits, you should probably look for real vandalism, which is typically easy to spot, and quite different than what you are dealing with. I find recent changes patrolling to be quite theraputic. It takes my mind off whatever conflicts I may be involved in elsewhere on the site. — Jun. 25, '06 <freak|talk>

I'm neither stressed nor worried in the least. I blocked those editors for misusing personal information about me in an effort as a form of defamation of character. I posted that info in the ignorant thought that they wanted an education, but they don't...all they want to do is use wiki as a blog to post nonsense. In fact, they should be happy, since they are single purpose editors that do little more than add nonsense to the articles, that I haven't blocked them indefinitely.--MONGO 17:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only misusing personal information as defamation but also for massive assumptions of bad faith and as a justification to edit against consensus. The parts of this ongoing battle I've been involved with have been marked by relentless insertion of POV material that has been reverted/removed by a large group of editors. You know, at some point it does become vandalism...maybe not penis photos but disruption just the same. Rx StrangeLove 18:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal info

You yourself posted personal info at one time or another. Whether or not you believe that it's being "misused", it has a great deal of bearing in the conversation at hand. Especially if you are blocking users for doing just that. Please take it up at your RFC. Bastique▼ _voir 17:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for 15 minutes for perpetuating a forest fire on User talk:Gmaxwell. If you must engage in flame wars, have the courtesy not to conduct them on someone else's talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your blocking

Hey, remember when I blocked Lulu for 3RR and you unblocked him, citing how I had been involved in a prior dispute with him? I'm wondering why you aren't applying these same guidelines to yourself. You were in a present conflict with these recent people you blocked, much worse than my involvement with Lulu ... and I can't help but think that you've being hypocritical. --Cyde↔Weys 14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles. I do not remember all the details of the 3RR offense by Lulu in which you blocked him for, I remember it happening, but not sure about all the circumstances. Looking at the block log, I cited that you didn't warn him on his talk page...do you recollect that. The differences between Lulu and the conspiracy theorists I deal with on the 9/11 articles is a pretty wide chasm. Lulu was instrumental in helping get Retreat of glaciers since 1850 to FA status and I think has done an outstanding job ensuring other articles don't become hotbeds of POV hatred...such as Ward Churchill.--MONGO 14:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew you were going to try to avoid the issue by saying Lulu isn't the same as these people you block. But the issue remains: you shouldn't block people you are in content disputes with. I know you're praising Lulu and everything, but in my mind he's pretty much the same as these 9/11 people you're dealing with. So - are we going to rely on subjective criteria like "how I think about someone" or objective criteria like "don't block someone you're in a dispute with"? --Cyde↔Weys 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh Cyde...no surprise since you think Kelly Martin is some great prize to Misplaced Pages. I am not in a content dispute with the trolls and POV pushing morons on the 9/11 pages...they are vandalizing critical articles that discuss events that adversely affected the lives of millions of people. Those articles are absolutely no different than certain biographies...Misplaced Pages only looks moronic if we post stuff that not a single reputable newspaper will touch with a 50 foot pole. The crap they litter those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft and is about as close to vandalism as it gets....but just a hairline over adding erect penises. Your failure to see the difference between Lulu and a bunch of nitwits is your problem.--MONGO 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

However

Thank you for barnstar, but next time, avoid flack from process wonks and go to another adminstrator! Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be reasonable ... the people who are speaking with MONGO now are assuredly not process wonks. Kelly and I, Userbox Destroyers Extraordinaire? Process wonks? Hah!! --Cyde↔Weys 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You've crossed over on this one. If VoiceofAll had implimented the block, it would have been 5-by-5, right? . I don't think you're wrong - MONGO should have gone to you, or Voice, or ANI or something, becuase said user would have been blocked, and all of this would have been avoided. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, it is difficult to deal with daily vandalisms to these articles by POV pushers of nonsense and be able to expect a clear response at AN/I or a neutral third party because they don't see the vandalism, even if you give them the diffs...I know this sounds like a lame excuse, but truthfully, I cannot ever agree that there are content disputes with the conspiracy theorists because they too often add only poorly referenced or unquantifiable nonsense to the articles...they are just barely above vandals and trolls in many cases. Some of us, I admit, even I was fooled a little at the very beginning, when User:TruthSeeker1234 started using a strawman sock User:EngineerEd. Tom Harrison exposed him after a few malicious edits. But TruthSeeker had been brought to arbitration (it should have been an Rfc, but I didn't initiate it)...arbitration rejected the action at that time, but checkuser later showed that Truth was using a strawman sock and two other accounts as well. They stop at almost nothing and if everyone understood that this is not a content dispute but instead is the only way to handle POV pushers who troll the 9/11 articles.--MONGO 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that I see POV pushers who troll the 9/11 articles as content-based issues, which requires that the blocks be on the basis of exaustion of patience. They have exausted my patience, and did it quite quickly. They will exaust the patience of anyone who gets involved. Get more adminstrators involved, get them exausted, and let them do your dirty-work. I got exausted after only one edit. Others will get exausted quite quickly. Why take the heat when you could make someone else do it. Cyde, you've commented here, and I've always thought you were a pretty spot-on guy. Take a look over the 9/11 articles and tell me when you are exausted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. ..