User:Thomas B/Sandbox
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
User:MONGO consistently treats Wikipedians who take a serious interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories with no respect. This is unfortunate because a great many people who are sceptical about the official US government version of the events of 9/11 (and are therefore somewhat hastily identified as conspiracy theorists) may make very excellent contributions to Wikipedia. But they of course have better things to do than put up with repeated bullying and attempts to impugn their motives. This sort of rhetoric has recently caused me (User:Thomas Basboll) to withdraw from actively contributing to Wikipedia. The purpose of this RfC is to help decide whether that is an acceptable outcome (i.e., the lesser of two evils). As I see it, Mongo has clearly and consistently violated WP:CIVIL. An RFC is needed because of the broad base of largely deserved respect that Mongo has in the WP community.
Desired outcome
That Mongo retract and apologize for his offensive and threatening remarks, resolve to make a special effort to remain civil on 9/11 related articles, and help to raise the standard of discussion about these articles in general. Alternatively, that Mongo stop editing the disputed articles. This is what I have so far elected to do.
I imagine I respresent a largely silent group of would-be Wikipedians whose factual knowledge would serve as the basis for useful contributions if the level of civility in this area were improved. Indeed, this case should begin the process of overturning what seems to have become a tacit consensus to suspend WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in the case of suspected 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Other marginalized views share the same fate, of course, so a much larger principle can in fact be tested here.
Description
I started editing Wikipedia on July 19, 2006, and immediately ran into Mongo. I quit on March 3, 2007 because I had had enough of his hostility toward my edits. Mongo's behaviour his important because he commands well-deserved respect as a result of his substantial contributions to Wikipedia content. As a result of his standing in this regard, and also because he presents a forceful and impressive persona in discussions, Mongo's approach is winning adherents. This is noticable especially in articles pertaining to the events of 9/11.
The final straw for me was this exchange [1] on Mongo's talk page, and its subsequent development/escalation at AN/I [2]. Mongo's view seems to be that his original edit summary was justified, that my objections were themselves uncivil, and that his own "physical" posturing could not be construed as any sort of threat. On his view, it was simply a justified demand that I go away. In addition to asking Tyrenius for help, which soon led to an AN/I (when Mongo impugned Tyrenius's motives for getting involved), I asked Tom Harrison to informally mediate between them [3]. The results were unsatisfactory and Thomas stopped editing permanently at that point. Mongo's view remains that, "in the context of the disagreements we generally have," there should be no presumption of good faith between us. Even a polite (if terse) suggestion to end the discussion for today (i.e., "have a nice day") should be read as an offensive gesture (i.e., "fuck you".)
Mongo also does not make any practical distinction between NPOV violations (at least in the case of so-called 9/11 conspiracy theories) and vandalism, though WP policy is clear on this. This leads him to treat those who make good-faith attempts to get an article to reflect their view of things like people who are trying to make Wikipedia look bad (or just generally irritate the Wikipedia community). He treats even the latter with unnecessary rudeness, which risk feeding the trolls. See discussion here [4].
In assessing this incident, it may be useful to look back at the historical context Mongo refers to. From the beginning (at the top of this archive [5]), Mongo has approached Thomas's edits in terms of the POV they implied and in violation of WP:AGF [6]. This led him to forcefully resist edits that would eventually be adopted by the community. Mongo has also rebuffed all objections to his treatment of me. [7] [8].
The purpose of this RfC is really to re-assert the general Wikipedia value of civility over particular and predictable local disputes of the moment. Every time popular figures announce their support for the 9/11 Truth Movement, or every time an anniversary brings new background coverage of "9/11 conspiracy theories" in the media, the related Wikipedia articles will become points of fresh contention about (for most of us) familiar issues. The question is whether we want this sort of hostility to be part of the familiar flare-ups. I would prefer we develop a more civil way of meeting the 9/11 Truth POV here at Wikipedia. We know it is out there; let's deal with it constructively. And let's do so in a manner befitting of an intellectual community.
Evidence of disputed behavior
Applicable policies and guidelines
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
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 editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.