Evidence presented by User:Travb as of this posting is in regards to edits made by a Cplot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked twice for 3RR and now for a week for disruption. Cplot was going around adding a nonexistant category ([[Category: USEBACA]]) to talkpages, was questioned about it here and after I blocked him for a week when he again added the category in one of his edits, I posted my block for review at AN/I and was unanimously supported. So, indeed, I am glad to help keep just another troll who is here for disruption out of Wikipedia.-- MONGO 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I CyclePat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been asked to comment on cplot. I have many key issues which I would like to present. However I fail to see the relevance of this arbitration and my evidence/observations regarding cplot and his block. Why do you think cplot's case should be included here? Why is cplot's situation so closelly related to sebhcan's arbitration? -- CyclePat 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
(This has turned into a bit of an essay. Sorry.)
In Mongo's explanation of his treatment of me, I get the sense that he is suggesting that there are exceptions to the principle of assuming good faith. It looks as though his "skeptical" approach of "always questioning information that is not mainstream" implies not assuming good faith unless mainstream views are being presented.
Leaving aside the question of whether the specific edits I proposed can be reasonably taken as "promotional of expanding the discussion related to alternative theories regarding the collapse of the World trade Center" rather than indicative of a desire to make an article more informative, my question is whether even a clear indication that an editor believes that, say, a conspiracy theory belongs in an, at present, wholly mainstream article would license the suspension of principles like WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BITE or WP:CIVIL. A more reasonable approach, I would think, would be to approach such edits, at least at first pass, as honest errors, i.e., mistakes in judgment. (In practice, this would mean reverting them and providing a detailed explanation: in many cases this explanation could be reused, costing no typing time.)
Now, Mongo goes on to say that his were not the only "guarded" responses to my suggestions. In fact, I would say Mongo's introductory salvo was "barbed", and I mean this in a very specific way that User:Toiyabe brought to my attention: "I think a lot of people are waiting to see if you crack under pressure and say something nutty." [4] In this case, Mongo was even handing me something sufficienty nutty to say [5] -- all I had to do was take the bait. What Mongo was doing was trying to gauge my motives: and that, I think, is the opposite of assuming they are upright and decent. He was approaching me with what he calls "skepticism".
Also, I am struck (and have heard this from Mongo before) by the idea that he "accomodated" me and carried out edits "for me", as if civility is about doing favours for each other. I naturally assumed that requesting a proper edit, well on the side of caution, in a locked BLP would be accepted. Mongo's approach to WP is, shall we say, "personal". He takes things personally and he engages with edits by way of the persons making them. (The idea that I "had my way" with an article reflects a similar attitude: it presumes that I am here to build up my ego, rather than to learn and teach.)
As he notes, I've talked at length with Mongo about this on several occasions, but to no avail. I am, of course, still new enough to perhaps have misunderstood the "community spirit" of this thing. My point, however, is this: given Mongo's personal and skeptical editing style is Seabhcan really doing anything wrong? Is he not just engaging with the lovable monster of a persona that Mongo has constructed for himself for the purpose of editing and administering the Wikipedia? After all, Tom Harrison has been more than right to say that I am "in a better position to judge Mongo's behavior" with some experiences now behind me. The trouble is that I was more or less ready to take Seabhcan's playful ribbing approach, i.e., to see Mongo's terse rebukes as good natured jabs for a higher purpose. And, yes, to begin to hit back a little. You know, get in the spirit of things.
But then this arbitration comes up and the fun is over. So I ask again, wouldn't it be better just not to suspend NPA, and not to take things personally? Wouldn't it be better to actually assume good faith in these cases and accept the results of that "civilization", even if this comes at the cost of introducing a few more notions from beyond the mainstream so revered by "skeptics"?
WP may make the internet not suck. But this thing, I'm afraid, makes WP suck a bit more than it needs to.
Best, -- Thomas Basboll 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I can imagine why Seabhcan might call his enemies hired goons and facists, but why anti-semites? I couldn't follow the history closely enough to see when that term entered the debate. TheronJ 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Seabhcan didn't call them anti-semites, although the wording of the sentence might seem to give that false impression. Seabhcan was commenting on the fact that Morty, et al, were posting "nonsense" that asserted Ganser was an "anti-semite". Thus, the sentence was meant to be read "[We are hearing] more [of that] anti-semitic nonsense [about Ganser] from Morty....".
Seabhcan clearly posted a poor choice of words, here, but it wasn't an assertion about Morty's views on Jews and Arabs. Stone put to sky 07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we dont post on eachother talk I will drop this here, feel free to remove after you read it.
Per: [8]
The dif you provided
[9] shows the information being moved from the Line 19 section to the section below around Line 479. If you look on the talk page scroll all the way down in the dif to the very bottom and you would see the section at the end of the page, so it wasnt removed, just moved to the bottom. It seems they top posted and Mongo moved it down to be in time order. Dif of Camper top posting
[10] --
Nuclear
Zer0 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: User:CamperStrike has been indef blocked for utilizing sockpuppets to disrupt articles, and to evade blocks. Vsmith 14:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure where to put this, but it seems out of place on the evidence page, so I'll put it here. Although he doesn't say so in my block log, you can see in my talk page history that the reason I was indefinitely blocked the second time was due to creating a sockpuppet with a mocking username. Well, Luna only unbanned me after I had already been unbanned for "trolling and harassment" or whatever. He only unbanned me after the checkuser results came back and said it wasn't me who made the username. In fact, he only unbanned because he was the first to reply in IRC. I'd been in there for about an hour, and I basically said something to the effect of "thanks everyone for all your help and suggestions, but I have one more favor to ask: now that the checkuser results came back, can someone unblock me?" Luna happened to be the first to reply. So his "supporting of harassment" and "unblocking without discussion" are really nothing to worry about. Milto LOL pia 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Evidence presented by User:Travb as of this posting is in regards to edits made by a Cplot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked twice for 3RR and now for a week for disruption. Cplot was going around adding a nonexistant category ([[Category: USEBACA]]) to talkpages, was questioned about it here and after I blocked him for a week when he again added the category in one of his edits, I posted my block for review at AN/I and was unanimously supported. So, indeed, I am glad to help keep just another troll who is here for disruption out of Wikipedia.-- MONGO 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I CyclePat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been asked to comment on cplot. I have many key issues which I would like to present. However I fail to see the relevance of this arbitration and my evidence/observations regarding cplot and his block. Why do you think cplot's case should be included here? Why is cplot's situation so closelly related to sebhcan's arbitration? -- CyclePat 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
(This has turned into a bit of an essay. Sorry.)
In Mongo's explanation of his treatment of me, I get the sense that he is suggesting that there are exceptions to the principle of assuming good faith. It looks as though his "skeptical" approach of "always questioning information that is not mainstream" implies not assuming good faith unless mainstream views are being presented.
Leaving aside the question of whether the specific edits I proposed can be reasonably taken as "promotional of expanding the discussion related to alternative theories regarding the collapse of the World trade Center" rather than indicative of a desire to make an article more informative, my question is whether even a clear indication that an editor believes that, say, a conspiracy theory belongs in an, at present, wholly mainstream article would license the suspension of principles like WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BITE or WP:CIVIL. A more reasonable approach, I would think, would be to approach such edits, at least at first pass, as honest errors, i.e., mistakes in judgment. (In practice, this would mean reverting them and providing a detailed explanation: in many cases this explanation could be reused, costing no typing time.)
Now, Mongo goes on to say that his were not the only "guarded" responses to my suggestions. In fact, I would say Mongo's introductory salvo was "barbed", and I mean this in a very specific way that User:Toiyabe brought to my attention: "I think a lot of people are waiting to see if you crack under pressure and say something nutty." [4] In this case, Mongo was even handing me something sufficienty nutty to say [5] -- all I had to do was take the bait. What Mongo was doing was trying to gauge my motives: and that, I think, is the opposite of assuming they are upright and decent. He was approaching me with what he calls "skepticism".
Also, I am struck (and have heard this from Mongo before) by the idea that he "accomodated" me and carried out edits "for me", as if civility is about doing favours for each other. I naturally assumed that requesting a proper edit, well on the side of caution, in a locked BLP would be accepted. Mongo's approach to WP is, shall we say, "personal". He takes things personally and he engages with edits by way of the persons making them. (The idea that I "had my way" with an article reflects a similar attitude: it presumes that I am here to build up my ego, rather than to learn and teach.)
As he notes, I've talked at length with Mongo about this on several occasions, but to no avail. I am, of course, still new enough to perhaps have misunderstood the "community spirit" of this thing. My point, however, is this: given Mongo's personal and skeptical editing style is Seabhcan really doing anything wrong? Is he not just engaging with the lovable monster of a persona that Mongo has constructed for himself for the purpose of editing and administering the Wikipedia? After all, Tom Harrison has been more than right to say that I am "in a better position to judge Mongo's behavior" with some experiences now behind me. The trouble is that I was more or less ready to take Seabhcan's playful ribbing approach, i.e., to see Mongo's terse rebukes as good natured jabs for a higher purpose. And, yes, to begin to hit back a little. You know, get in the spirit of things.
But then this arbitration comes up and the fun is over. So I ask again, wouldn't it be better just not to suspend NPA, and not to take things personally? Wouldn't it be better to actually assume good faith in these cases and accept the results of that "civilization", even if this comes at the cost of introducing a few more notions from beyond the mainstream so revered by "skeptics"?
WP may make the internet not suck. But this thing, I'm afraid, makes WP suck a bit more than it needs to.
Best, -- Thomas Basboll 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I can imagine why Seabhcan might call his enemies hired goons and facists, but why anti-semites? I couldn't follow the history closely enough to see when that term entered the debate. TheronJ 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Seabhcan didn't call them anti-semites, although the wording of the sentence might seem to give that false impression. Seabhcan was commenting on the fact that Morty, et al, were posting "nonsense" that asserted Ganser was an "anti-semite". Thus, the sentence was meant to be read "[We are hearing] more [of that] anti-semitic nonsense [about Ganser] from Morty....".
Seabhcan clearly posted a poor choice of words, here, but it wasn't an assertion about Morty's views on Jews and Arabs. Stone put to sky 07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we dont post on eachother talk I will drop this here, feel free to remove after you read it.
Per: [8]
The dif you provided
[9] shows the information being moved from the Line 19 section to the section below around Line 479. If you look on the talk page scroll all the way down in the dif to the very bottom and you would see the section at the end of the page, so it wasnt removed, just moved to the bottom. It seems they top posted and Mongo moved it down to be in time order. Dif of Camper top posting
[10] --
Nuclear
Zer0 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: User:CamperStrike has been indef blocked for utilizing sockpuppets to disrupt articles, and to evade blocks. Vsmith 14:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure where to put this, but it seems out of place on the evidence page, so I'll put it here. Although he doesn't say so in my block log, you can see in my talk page history that the reason I was indefinitely blocked the second time was due to creating a sockpuppet with a mocking username. Well, Luna only unbanned me after I had already been unbanned for "trolling and harassment" or whatever. He only unbanned me after the checkuser results came back and said it wasn't me who made the username. In fact, he only unbanned because he was the first to reply in IRC. I'd been in there for about an hour, and I basically said something to the effect of "thanks everyone for all your help and suggestions, but I have one more favor to ask: now that the checkuser results came back, can someone unblock me?" Luna happened to be the first to reply. So his "supporting of harassment" and "unblocking without discussion" are really nothing to worry about. Milto LOL pia 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)