WIKIPEDIA:REQUESTS FOR COMMENT GRAVITOR

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: 13:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC).

Gravitor ( talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

User Gravitor has been engaged in disruptive editing behaviour, 3RR violations, does not assume good faith, is becoming increasingly incivil, makes personal attacks, removes unflattering complaints from his talk page, will not discuss dramatic reverts on the talk page (even though he claims that he does), and is accusing editors of being involved in a conspiracy to cover up evidence that NASA never went to the Moon. While the basis of this dispute concerns the content of the articles Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings and Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, this RfC concerns solely his behavior.

Desired outcome

I would like Gravitor to end his disruptive behavior, to stop his personal attacks, to attempt to assume good faith, to discuss changes on the talk pages, and to begin working towards creating a consensus article. Most importantly, I would like him to act in a civil manner towards his fellow editors. If he can not do so, I suggest some form of administrative ban.

Description

This problem began as a content dispute at Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. User Gravitor, a self-confessed believer that the Moon landings were faked, created a sub-article called Independent evidence for human Moon landings. I proposed a merger with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, and while this was being debated, he renamed the page to Independent evidence for Moon landings. I withdrew my merge proposal, attempted to engage in dialog to find out the purpose of the "new" article. After not receiving a satisfactory answer, and after Gravitor unilaterally renamed the article to Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, I put this article up for deletion. While there was a clear majority in favor of deletion, no "consensus" was reached, and the arbitrator suggested a merger with the aforementioned article. After having a poll to determine whether this article was related to the "hoax accusations" or not (User Gravitor and Carfiend were the only editors claiming that this article has "nothing to do with the hoax"), I once again proposed a merger with the hoax article (which is still open at this moment).

It is clear from the poll that was taken that Gravitor's point of view regarding the article is a minority opinion. Nevertheless, he vigorously reverts any changes to the article that a reasonable editor would regard as an "improvement". He has become increasing incivil. He is engaged in a continuous process of making personal attacks. He accuses editors of being involved in a conspiracy to remove "factual" information from the article. He continues to revert changes to the article using edit summaries like "revert. This has nothing to do with the hoax. Use talk page." even though he refuses to use the talk page. Specific talk sections have been set up to argue for or against his reversions (which are against the majority opinion), but he does not engage in any meaningful dialog---He is continually asked to provide examples to support his opinion, but he will not do so. He is continually asked for a single reference that mentions "independent evidence" and "Apollo" (in order to prove that this topic is notable), but he will not do so.

Several (all?) editors involved with this topic have made complaints on his talk page. From my perspective, most editors have honestly tried to accommodate Gravitor's minority opinion, and have attempted to show him how he could reword text that would be acceptable to others. They have attempted to engage in meaningful dialog about a possible change of the article's title that would be more favorable to his point of view. It is true that Gravitor's continued harassment has brought out bad behavior in some of the editors involved, but this is almost always a result of what could be described as "trolling" behavior of gravitor.

To understand Gravitor's reasons for creating this article, consider his statement

Of course it's true that NASA claimes they went to the moon, and of course it's true that there's no independent evidence.

Thus, from my point of view, his creation of this article was done only to prove a point (see WP:POINT) and to advance his point of view. Unless he has had a change of opinion, this statement does not demonstrate that he is working in good faith to write an encyclopedic article from a neutral point of view that gives the appropriate weight to the majority (or consensus) opinion.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Here I provide a list of examples of his unacceptable behavior. I will attempt to search diffs, but given the edit warring that has been going on, and the large size of the talk page, this will be difficult.

Uncivil behavior and personal attacks

Saying that my "dishonesty is tiresome", is not only uncivil and a personal attack, but also is a violation of assuming good faith ( WP:AGF). [1]
Calling me "untrustworthy" violates WP:AGF.
Telling me that I am on a POV crusade or Jihad is not only attack, but culturally insulting. Especially after I have explained the cultural reference to him here: User_talk:Gravitor#conflict_of_interest_.2B_civility [2]
Telling numskll to "Please explain you justification for the mess you are making" is in the least, not very diplomatic, and at worst uncivil and a personal attack.
Accusing others of being sock-puppet is against wikipedia's civility policy, among others.
Accusing my edits of being "a slurry of rubbish" is a personal attack.
His comment "Your continued attempts to sabotage this page are not appreciated" is a personal attack, especially after I have explained to him why I am not trying to "sabotage" the article, but am trying to help. User_talk:Gravitor#.22just_goes_to_show_his_commitment_to_destroying_this_article.22
Calling a well-intentioned newcomer to the debate as spouting "nonsense" is uncivil.
Accusing someone of "You admit to having an agenda to destroy this article based on your personal differences with some editors." is uncivil, especially when the claim does not appear to be true.
Your statement "So butt out then If you're not interested in helping to build the encyclopedia, stop sowing disinformation and let others get on with it." is not civil.
Telling Wahkeenah "you can't constantly spout rubbish that everyone knows is not true and expect people to believe you" is a personal attack and not civil.
Telling Wahkeenah "It looks like Wikipedia doesn't work the way you're used to at NASA - you can't just have someone 'disappeared' because they don't agree with your POV here." is uncivil, and potentially libelous.
"consider working to improve the encyclopedia, rather than just trolling others who are trying to write factual articles. "
"No, it would not. You are lying again."
"you have already declared that if you don't get your way you will try to delete the article, and and try to slander users who disagree with you. You've tried both previously, neither got you what you wanted"
"Yes, please provide them. Of course, I have no expectation that you will do what you say"
"which is a sockpuppet user / pair of users who are attempting to provoke revert wars by reverting without comment on the talk page." and "I fed this troll, which I should not have done,"
"Your dishonesty and trolling is evident in your behavior"
"You consistently troll and revert war"
" Numbskull was caught trolling, and none of the good-old-boys wants to admit it. "
"And I would appreciate you stopping trolling."
"? Stop trolling and start working constructively. Gravitor 04:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC) "
"I'm not getting into the situation where you post slurrys of nonsense and expect me to tag it for you"
He continues to delete comments I added to his talk page. His edit summaries for doing so are "revert trolling" and so on, even though other editors continue to re-add my comments, saying that they are valid.
"most of us have jobs and lives, which the NASA shills don't seem to (unless trolling this page is their full time job...)"
"Yes, the pattern is more and more pro landing editors admitting to having been paid by NASA."
"The dirty tricks campaign waged by Wahkeenah and his sock puppets is very reminiscent of NASA's behavior."
"The community has no patience for your type. "
"You can continue your pathetic diatribe about how you don't need evidence to continue believing all you like - the truth is out"

These following incidents occurred after submitting this RfC, and the outside opinion given by MECU.

"I don't know how you make sense of that in your little fantasy world." [3]
"You need to chill out, and actually read the thing in the cold light of day, and not the editing rage you seem to have worked yourself into." [4]
"Might I respectfully suggest that you don't edit when you are drunk and angry?" [5] Lunokhod 13:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
"Please feel free to replace it Numbskull, what I removed was some random piece of abuse that you posted when you were drunk, after you promised that you were leaving Wikipedia." [6]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lunokhod ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC). Disruptive editing reply

Unilateral reverts to a non-consensus (or at least non-majority) version of the "Independent evidence" article is disruptive. He has been reverting not only a single edit, but multiple edits at once. This hinders the rest of the community from trying to improve this artile.
Reverting with edit summaries such as "see talk page", when he refuses to discuss his edits on the talk page is disruptive. I have been asking for specific examples of why my edits are "rubish", and he has yet to respond (excluding personal attacks, uncivil responses, and vague untrue statements).
Renaming the page two times while the topic was being considered for a merge is disruptive.
3RR violations are disruptive.
Making exactly 3 reverts per day is disruptive
Placing a 3RR violation banner on my talk page (when I have reverted the article twice, both of which were explained on the talk page) certaintly violates some policy, and is an attempt to stymie my contributions to this article.

These following incidents occurred after submitting this RfC, and the outside opinion given by MECU.

(not sure if this is disruptive editing or simply disruptive behaviour, but...) After two day's work by Branson03 and a few others to reach a consensus, take the debate back to the point where it started, furthermore citing his minority view as the one that had somehow been agreed as a consensus. [7] LeeG 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
After a discussion on Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, it was decided among a supermajority of participant to create a related article called Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Parties. The first thing that gravitor did was to delete the contents of this page, and add a redirect to the "evidence" page; All without proposing or discussing a merger on the talk page. [8]
He has removed user comments from the talk page on several occasions [9] [10]
Reverting a page back to a previous version without discussing on the talk page (especially pertinent, as it is an accusation (s)he frequently levels at other users) [11] LeeG 00:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Suddenly changing the argument over why an article should be removed, from being a "POV Fork" (no response to challenge) to "avoid[ing] having to use Wikipedia process and reach consensus" see this talk page. This shows the aim is disruption, or at best page/article ownership, and in no way an attempt to improve Wikipedia. LeeG 00:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

accusing anyone who takes an opposing view to him as writing "nonsense" (see [12], and at the same time accusing me of the very thing he has done, namely revert without discussion or comment, when I had made two clear comments. LeeG 23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, as he did to me. It is obvious we've got the wrong admin looking into this, as he is unwilling to take any action of any kind. Wahkeenah 02:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

In short, all one needs to do is read his talk page, as well as the talk page of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. There are more than enough examples, and I unfortunately, do not have the time to collect them all.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Lunokhod 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links) There are several section on the talk page that were started in the attempt to work towards consensus

I think that is enough. Furthermore, I have tried to address concerns about his behavior on his talk page. These have been deleted by him, but are listed above in near verbatim form.

Lunokhod 13:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

I agree wholeheartedly with the statement of the dispute. Gravitor was also disruptive on Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations and List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969. (The early history of that article is missing because it was renamed, but Gravitor's comments can be seen on the talk page.) I do not believe that Gravitor is working in the best interest of Wikipedia. I think he is using it to express his own beliefs. Bubba73 (talk), 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree as well. I can't speak to the motivation for his actions but they don't seem designed to improve wikipedia and do seem designed for disruption, to assert ownership over the articles he edits, and to hurl abuse upon those that don't agree with his view of those topics. Further, his unwillingness to discuss or abate his behavior makes it seemingly impossible to collaborate with him or to fold his disparate ideas into consensus based decisions. I have made repeated attempts to do reach consensus and have open discussions with him on the articles we both edit (those attempts he ridicules, distorts or ignores) as well on his talk page (those attempts he deletes with the soul response of labeling them trolling or vandalism in the edit summaries) Editors should not be subject to an endless torrent of uncivil behavior, insults, and baiting simply to work through disagreements. Numskll 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Agree. Bubba73 and Numskll's assessments are on target. Any questions we ask him that in any way challenge his opinion on something are answered in a flippant way, not actually answering the question, just restating the comment that compelled us to ask the question in the first place, thus creating an endless cycle. He also parrots any criticism back at the rest of us. The most notorious example might be a mass revert along with "use the talk page", while refusing to actually use the talk page in a constructive way. When one of us reverts it back, he might keep reverting until his 3 reverts for the day are used up. His idea of "consensus" seems to add up to the fact that he authored the page and thus feels he has the power of final say over its contents. Continuing his behavior from last summer, he has often accused all of us of being "NASA shills", among many other things. Wahkeenah 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with the statement of dispute. Gravitor has been editing to what he wants, and ignoring everything on the talk page (and telling everyone else to use the talk page, when they are). I tried to resolve the moon rock section, and all together, there was three attempts just for that one section. Branson03 02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with the statement of dispute, assuming this is still open. Branson03 proposed a helpful way forward, which seemed to be embraced by all, only to result in Gravitor reversing his position on the inclusion of the moon rocks section, and then entrenching himself to that position. Then, in response to a sensible poll on the new idea, responds with "those who are squeamish about any kind of scientific method being applied to NASA don't need to see the 'E' word?". This quote is a direct dig at my previous rebuttal to him of the meaning of the word "evidence". This is not appropriate behaviour, or mature in any way. LeeG 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

Agree. I don't know whether I have been involved enough in the dispute to qualify as having tried to try to resolve it (I'll admit that I gave up in disgust) but I certainly agree with this summary of the situation. MLilburne 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. I haven't looked at the fine details of the dispute and don't have time to. The dispute around the article in question is generating a lot of dissent, ill feeling and bad process (reverts etc). I noticed recent postings by Gravitor with strange edit summaries on Numskll's talk page which I thought was very inappropriate, hostile even. I think some action is required to moderate this behaviour. Peter Campbell 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Agree. I am not posting as an "Outside View" because I have taken a stand on the disposition of the article. I stumbled on this dispute a couple of days ago when I noticed the unusual reverting of Gravitor's talk page. I feel talk pages are part of a user's history, and that removing negative comments is bad form because it hides evidence of problems people may be having. I reverted his deletes, and he was rather curt with me in the edit summary. After that I started reading his editing history, and that led me to the article. In the general sense, I agree with MECU that two wrongs do not make a right. Some of the other authors allowed themselves to be dragged into a flamewar, and at times were uncivil and made personal attacks against Gravitor. There is no excuse for this behavior. However, it is my sense that Gravitor is instigator in this dispute. He goes beyond violating core principles of civility and good faith and is instead well within the territory of tendentious editing and fanaticism. Someone who writes "It looks like Wikipedia doesn't work the way you're used to at NASA - you can't just have someone 'disappeared' because they don't agree with your POV here" is not someone who is likely to change their behavior by pointing them to a link to WP:CIVIL. He will not change. Instead, he will game the system. He will remain just within the bounds of civility to prevent himself from being blocked, and just abusive enough to bull-bait other editors into lashing out in frustration. He will post volumes on the talk pages to give the appearance that he is trying to achieve consensus, yet remain obtuse and evasive and never actually agree to anything significant. He will never pull back from the brink, and if other editors do so out of a good faith attempt to prevent conflict he wins by default. I tried talking to him yesterday, and by afternoon I had already been accused of being a bad faith, POV-pushing hypocrite who was "hell bent" on starting an edit war. In short, he is a crank. Liberal Classic 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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 by MECU

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.

Without provided diffs for some of the claims above, I read through Gravitor's talk page and by the user's comments there, I agree the user has violated WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. Looking at the edit summaries on the user's talk page, many of these violate WP:CIVIL, especially terms like "rv. troll" which was used 18 times in some manner or another in the most recent 50 edits for when I looked at the history page. Using terms like "sockpuppet" and "troll" should not be used, especially when engaged in a dispute with the other user for which no established supporting evidence has been found. A checkuser appears to have been performed on Gravitor and a previous editor to the moon/hoax articles last summer with no support, but continued mentioning of this on the Talk:Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings pages occurred. This RFC claims violations of WP:3RR, but the user was only blocked once for violation WP:3RR (and only once total, for 24 hours, see [13]), for which it seems odd that someone violating the policy and having been blocked would continue to do so, and worse that those on the "other side" wouldn't report for further violations, unless they were attempting to over-look the violations to give the benefit of the doubt. Either way, Gravitor and User:Wahkeenah both violated the spirit of WP:3RR in this series below by reverting the 4th time minutes outside the 24 hour window.

# (cur) (last) 09:34, February 23, 2007 Wahkeenah (Talk | contribs) (rw)
# (cur) (last) 09:32, February 23, 2007 Gravitor (Talk | contribs) (Reverting without comment on the talk page is not helpful. Please use the talk page.)
# (cur) (last) 09:30, February 23, 2007 Wahkeenah (Talk | contribs) (rw)
# (cur) (last) 09:07, February 23, 2007 Gravitor (Talk | contribs) (Reverting without comment on the talk page is not helpful. Please use the talk page.)
# (cur) (last) 21:38, February 22, 2007 Wahkeenah (Talk | contribs) (Likewise.)
# (cur) (last) 21:21, February 22, 2007 Gravitor (Talk | contribs) (Reverting without comment on the talk page is not helpful. Please use the talk page.)
# (cur) (last) 09:28, February 22, 2007 Wahkeenah (Talk | contribs) (rw)
# (cur) (last) 09:14, February 22, 2007 Gravitor (Talk | contribs) (Remove editorializing re talk page.)
# (cur) (last) 00:27, February 22, 2007 Lunokhod (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 109924914 dated 2007-02-21 22:46:48 by Wahkeenah using popups)
# (cur) (last) 23:16, February 21, 2007 Gravitor (Talk | contribs) (Revert undiscussed revert vandal)

Despite the claim in the RFC nomination, I cannot see that Gravitor has not attempted to participate in the talk page of this article. In reading over the talk page of the article, there are many comments added by Gravitor that are not WP:CIVIL, but he is (at least initially) attempting to discuss the problem. After a few weeks, comments such as "Read the article. Gravitor 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)" and "What a troll. I will pick some refs from the article for you if you really can't read them. Gravitor 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)" are clearly not WP:CIVIL. But I think that Gravitor was labeled as "an opponent" to the majority of the other editors involved early on, and it became a majority beating up the minority. There are attempts to include and involve the minority position, but they seem to be in a manner to placate Gravitor. Specifically, Gravitor was "egged" on by Wahkeenah and Numskll with comments such as:

"Feel free to start living up to your own ideals. Wahkeenah 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)"
"Where would I start to find sources for such a intro? I tried googling "independent evidence of moon landing" and got the predictable results. Numskll 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)"
"This article was spun off from the hoax page, written by hoaxsters to server their own agenda. Wahkeenah 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)"
"Put the word AND where the second comma is, and maybe you'll get the point. Dealing with you is like dealing with my grandmother. Wahkeenah 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)"
"true enough. I don't think adding the hyphen at this point will change his behavior. It all about the drama to him Numskll 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)"
"No clue what you're talking about. It is obvious that I was referring to your behavior -- which by the way you've continued unabated. I can only assume its your selective reading comprehension issue again. Numskll 20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"
"These users are operating as sock/meat puppets to support a POV war. This is a real nuisance. I'd like the community to advise on what is to be done. Numskll 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- The same could be said of you and Lunakod / Bubba / Wahkeenah. The fact that a group of users do not share your point of view is not a 'nuisance', it is a fact of life. 'What is to be done'? how about engaging constructively instead of revert warring? Gravitor 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  - We keep waiting for Gravitor/Carfiend to live up to their own ideals. The similarity between the two users is not in their viewpoint, it's in their style and tone. Wahkeenah 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Late last summer, an RFC was begun against Carfiend, but when he took a vacation and seemed to have left for good, nothing was done. That process could begin again, treating Carfiend/Gravitor in tandem, since their M.O. is identical. Wahkeenah 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Please try to focus on editing the article and not personal crusades against users who are trying to improve the article. Gravitor 20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)" (A brilliant remark on what really should be done, despite the terminology used, "crusades")

These are just a few of the many instances that both sides failed to WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL.

Also, it appears a determination of consensus has been used as a vote several times, citing that Gravitor was in the minority by "4 to 2" (or something of the equivalent) in trying to bully the minority view. Such tactics go against WP:CIVIL by trying to control or win an edit dispute by using such means. In addition, I think this RFC was filed to gain an upper hand in the dispute by the majority side, for which would also be a violation of several policies.

I have requested full page protection to at least stop the edit war and revert waring on the article itself: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings .28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 as of the writing of this outside view.

It is my opinion that Gravitor, Wahkeenah, Carfiend, Numskll, and all others involved should:

Focus on the article content.
Immediately forgive and forget (even without stating such) all past transgressions and labels slung about.
Work to resolve and incorporate all positions on the subject in a WP:NPOV manner. Providing citations and sources for all claims (think WP:Attribution).
Stop labeling others actions as "vandalism"
Perform no revert on the article by an edit made by anyone else who has established a history with this article (but this doesn't give a license to revert any newcomer that may preform a good faith edit) or remove any large sections of text without consensus on the talk page achieved first (without polling and nearly complete agreement).
Use one of the dispute resolution methods available on Wikipedia to aid in resolving the dispute. I believe informal mediation may be acceptable since it appears all editors are willing to work together, but formal mediation may be considered as well if the inability to forgive past incidents per #2 above occurs.

In closing, I would support a block of all four users mentioned just above if full-page protection is not granted for a minimum of 1 week for severe violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and edit/revert waring and skirting WP:3RR. I would also support a one-month ban on editing the article, and any other moon-landing/hoax related article in conjunction with the full-page protection or 1-week block (with the 1 month ban to begin at the expiration of the 1 week block).

Users who endorse this summary:

MECU≈ talk 20:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Looks about right to me. Trollderella 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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.

I am concerned with MECU's interpetation of my actions on the article as "egging" Gravitor on. The impression is that simply failing to agree with an abusive editor is some form of provocation. The solution then, to avoid egging this user on, would be to withdraw from the article and let the abusive editor make disputed changes at will or, to simply ignore the user and not engage in discussion. Neither of these solutions seem viable or advisable. Gravitor's personal attacks on me have been extreme and without remorse or acknowledgement of the inappropriateness of his actions. My responses, while admittedly falling below the wikipeic ideal, have by and large been aimed at moving forward and conducting dialog. Any group block, as MECU advocates, may well send the message that Gravitor's actions were more or less on parity with mine and those of other editors. I think this is not the case. I would urge other third party commenters to look more carefully at the the specific context of my transgressions versus those of Gravitor's. I acknowledge that, in ideal circumstances, that I could have behaved better. However, these exchanges took place in the context of Gravitor's relentless attacks as described above. And even in the face of these attacks I repeatedly attempted to engage Gravitor in specific, focused discussions on the disputed parts of the topic. The same may not be said of Gravitor. Simply meting out a blanket punishment without regard to the individual differences in behavior and apparent intent seems inequitable.

I also believe that undue weight and emphasis have been placed on accusations of majority rule. The comments by Wahkeenah ( ... outnumbered 4 to 2) that MECU quoted were a direct response to Gravitor claiming a majority and consensus for his view of the article -- and making edits he knew were contra consensus. Wahkeenah was merely tallying the pro/con responses in that section on that particular issue by way of pointing out Gravitor's mistake. Simple addition is not abuse of power. I understand that a majority view is not a consensus but it is unreasonable to expect editors who are operating in good faith to compell an editor who is behaving well outside any wikipedic norm to engage in meaningful discussion. How could that be sustained? If need be I can provide similar context for each of the cases that MECU quotes. This context will stand up under scrutiny. I would urge other third party commenters to look carefully at the context of the quotes above prior to making judgements. There are significant differences in the nature of Gravitor's actions viewed against mine and the other editors. Those differencs should be addressed and taken into account prior to acting on this matter. Numskll 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I do agree that not all participation and non civilizedness was not equal, but in your own admission above, you could have acted better. "Someone else acted bad so I can act bad" is not a valid argument. Even in the face of relentless personal attacks, you are not allowed to become un-civilized yourself, nor are personal attacks in response excusable. I threw the 1-week "blanket block" out as an idea, the blocking admin could adjust as appropriate for various levels of incivility.

I'm also disappointed that you seem to dismiss my entire view because you think you are on the "right" side and your conduct was always to push forward and content focused. You seem to have missed the higher point of my view: That there are more at fault here than Gravitor. I by no means dismissed Gravitor's actions in any form, and by no means would a "blanket block" give rise or validity to the actions of Gravitor or any disruptor. Some of your actions, and others involved, were disruptive as well. Just because Gravitor is in the minority, a single block on him to "suppress" the minority view since he is the "lone" voice to achieve harmony isn't always the valid idea. Think of it this way: It takes at least 2 to revert war.

As an update: The full page protection has been approved, so blocking, sans for personal attacks on talk pages, would not be likely. -- MECU≈ talk 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning the two main "content" disputes of the article. Could you please follow this? This RfC, however, is not related to the content, but rather Gravitor's refusal to answer these two questions, and his manner of expressing his non-responses. I also think that the "4 to 2" vote does not accurately portray the opinion of all editors involved. There are more editors who did not participate in the call for consensus, yet who have reverted Gravitor's reverts. I apologize for not being more clear. I appreciate your help. Lunokhod 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It takes more than one to have an edit war, but Gravitor and Carfield "started it" with their intentional disruption of Wikipedia (not because they are in the minority). "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." All that is needed for bad editors to succeed is for good editors to do nothing. Also, they won't listen to reason. Their actions are so abusive that they have literally gotten me mad at times. Also notice that Gravitor essentially edits on one topic - the moon landing "hoax". His user page states that he is interested in NASA and gravity, but he has made no positive edits to any articles about those subjects. Bubba73 (talk), 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

"They started it!"... starting it doesn't matter. It still take two people for an edit war. I disagree they Gravitor won't listen to reason: The user participates in the talk page. You getting mad is understandable, but look at your statement with a fresh eyes (ie, mine): "bad editors" (POV), "no positive edits" (POV)... Stop and think for a minute that you might actually need to assume good faith and try to work with your opponent. I've been in your shoes, I know it's difficult, and coming here and being told that everyone is wrong is not what anyone wanted to hear, I certainly wouldn't have wanted it. But stop and think about it while the article is protected. Cool off. You have to understand the other side in order to debate them. -- MECU≈ talk 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I in no way implied that my view was the right view in this discussion. Upon carefully reading over what I just wrote, I find that interpretation of my response is puzzling. I'd invite MECU to also read over my response and test it against their intrepretation. I did take pains to point out that my actions, in large measure, were designed to evoke focused discussions on the topic; not to necessarily promote my view as the single correct view. I did not mean to dismiss your view. By noting my own failings (against a wikipedic ideal that few of us reach) I meant to acknowledge that validity of MECU's assessment of undesireable behavior on my part. But undesirable behavior should not result in censure unless it is truly disruptive and counter productive. And frank admission of that behavior should not validate the poor beahvior in other editors (you seem to imply that I could egg Gravitor on but he could not egg me on) On the whole, I'm not sure my admitted transgressions of ettiquette meet that test. In contrast to my measured view of my own behavior with regards to wikipedic ideals, I wholey reject the idea that I attempted to suppress Gravitor; I attempted to engage Gravitor and was repeatedly and agressively rebuked. I could not and can not compell him to enter into meaningful discussion. As for the idea it takes two to start a revert war, I'd ask what is the solution when an editor continually ignores and rejects discussion in favor of blanket reverts to content that editor knows are contentious and subject to debate? Your implied solution in this quandry, the very one I faced, is to withdraw, to submerge, to become invisible. Posting on the discussion page certainly had no effect. Finally this RFC is not about trying to supress Gravitor. It is about his bahavior. There certainly is context that surrounds the behavior and that is subject to scrutiny like everything else on wikipedia. But I worry that in defending the underdog you are also defending his transgressions. Your replies seem to support that view. I reject it. Numskll 23:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Half of the following exchange, My response to Gravitor, was posted above by MECU by way of illustrating my misbehavior. I'm posting the dif to point out that I was directly responding to a personal attack in a section that Gravitor began titled "Numskll's Trolling" Gravitor said that a comment made on another user's page indicated that I was an "admitted troll" I said no such thing. Gravitor however repeated this claim a number of times without regard to my response. [14]. Simply posting my response is extremely misleading. Numskll 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The same could be said of you and Lunakod / Bubba / Wahkeenah. The fact that a group of users do not share your point of view is not a 'nuisance', it is a fact of life. 'What is to be done'? how about engaging constructively instead of revert warring? Gravitor 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC) This was posted in the section that was meant to show that other users "egged" gravitor on. However, this post is Gravitor talking. He is also parsing out something I wrote in a misleading fashion. I did not say or imply that other points of view were a nuisance. Numskll 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps everyone should try and soak up what's been going on before letting the issue spill over into here. I see continued evidence in the edit summary you posted for those two entries [15] and [16]. It shouldn't matter the "context" a statement is made. If it can be interpreted (sanely) as harmful or not civil, it shouldn't be made. There was absolutely no reason to state "It all about the drama to him". Wikipedia would have been better off if you hadn't made that uncivil comment. Again, responding to an attack is not an excuse to be uncivil. I doubt this RFC will solve anything, since the answer I gave isn't to the liking of the participants. Everyone asked for an outside view (see endorsers), and yet when given it, you reject it? I am not defending Gravitor's actions, and think I have never done so. I think it is plain as day that he has violated several policies. What also needs to come to light are the other actions that have been done that have violated policy. It doesn't matter if he egged you on or not: it's still not an excuse to violate policy. -- MECU≈ talk 00:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The edit summaries were a response to my having just turned on that stupid "prompt if edit summary is left blank" thing -- not directed elsewhere. Your assuming it was somehow indicative of poor attitude on my part is . . . well, it is what it is. I wsih you would afford me the same benefit of the doubt you seem to afford Gravitor. Direct and pointed replies to things like turn out to be unwise. I guess I see the whole idea of my "egging" Gravitor on as implied justification for his actions. I appreciate your input, but the impression left by your response was something "like everyone is equally at fault and everyone is picking on Gravitor" and "since you admit that your behavior was not ideal it proves that your to blame for Gravitor's behavior." I appreciate that your view is more nuanced than that but there is some truth to what I've said. And you seem to place quite a bit of the blame for Gravitor's behavior on other editors. I felt it merited a careful response. I'll stop posting now. Take care and good luck. Numskll 01:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I did not intend for it to sound that way. My intent was to point out that Gravitor wasn't the only one who has violated policies here. I also wasn't trying to excuse Gravitor in any means by blaming the other users as the fault/cause. I think we now agree to eachother's views. -- MECU≈ talk 01:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm really stopping now. You did however advocate equal treatment for all parties which cetainly implies equal fault. That seems to be a pretty innaccurate yard stick. Some of your examples of my admittedly less than ideal behavior (which you define as disruptive and on par with Gravitor's behavior. I don't see how that view balances against what I observed and what I wrote. Your read-back of my first response was certainly skewed in Gravitor's favor) were taken from what I take to be the most rancorous sections -- right after Gravitor accused me for the umpteenth time of being a troll among a wide variety of other things. And the net effect of your response will simply encourage Gravitor to behave as he has always behaved. While the net effect on me will be to not assert my opinion for fear of being painted with the broad troll (<-- no accusation or offense intended) brush. So at least in that little binary we've nudged wikipedia more towards dystopia and further away from a respectable reference. I'm sure you are sincere. But the net effect sucks. Thanks again for your time and attention. Numskll 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Everything I said to Gravitor and Carfiend was in response to their escallating belligerence. Unlike those two users, whose entire editorial focus both last summer and currently has been this one subject, I have many pages on my watch list and many topics I like to edit. Therefore, I have now taken those hoax pages off my watch list, and will check back in a few weeks and see if anything constructive has happened. Wahkeenah 01:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Someone's "editorial focus" is not a fault. -- MECU≈ talk 01:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

No, not by itself, it isn't. It's just a piece of the puzzle. I maintain that Gravitor and Carfiend's sole purpose was to disrupt and annoy everyone. And they succeeded. And I'm taking your advice and staying away from those pages. Including this one, soon. Wahkeenah 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Gravitor seems to be a "single issue" editor - obsessed with his view over one and only one issue. I've been told that when politicians get a complaint from a person about a "single issue" they ignore it because they are usually obsessed over that one issue. Bubba73 (talk), 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

There is an important point the admin is missing: Gravitor is basically the original author of the page, and although he denies wanting to own it (in his usual way, he turns that accusation towards the other editors), he also constantly lectures us on what the page is "about" or "not about". If no action is taken here, then he wins, and this page becomes his personal pet... which is supposedly against wikipedia policy. Wahkeenah 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

This is a very, very good point. In many ways the best point that has been made about this dispute so far. Just saying. MLilburne 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Wahkeenah's right. The sweet irony is that MECU has accused us as being countra-consensus and praised Gravitor for trying to work towards it -- a consensus of one. Numskll 12:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement of the dispute

Desired outcome

Description

Evidence of disputed behavior

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

Outside view by MECU

Outside view

Discussion

Statement of the dispute

Desired outcome

Description

Evidence of disputed behavior

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

Outside view by MECU

Outside view

Discussion

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook