Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:14, 27 June 2006

Hipocrite

Hipocrite, I strongly disagree with your comments. Specifically your implication that 'all those people' should be treated the same. You provide no evidence whatsoever that Pokipsy76 was blocked for 'adding POV conspiracy theories' (he was not) but then say that the block on him was proper (though administered by the wrong person) since 'all those people' do so. MONGO was actually the one edit warring to keep a POV presentation in the article. The wording, "Some conspiracy theorists disagree", may well be the most popular point of view, but WP:NPOV specifically says that we should not write from the 'most popular' or 'consensus' (as MONGO has put it) POV, but rather a neutral point of view. Pokipsy76's form of, "Some disagree", was clearly neutral. Your rewrite was neutral as well. MONGO's was not. And your argument that it is ok to block Pokipsy76 because other people were POV pushing is just plain wrong. What did >Pokipsy76< do wrong? Not other people. THAT person. --CBD 16:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my late response. The following are diffs and stats that demonstrate that user has no value to this encyclopedia and should be blocked for exausting the communities patience:

• Edits to article not about 9/11, building demolition or conspiracy theories:
  • - revert warred over by user
  • - valuable, I guess.
  • wrongMinor grammer error, but valuable.
  • A bunch of POV warring over Italian electioneering, with some conspiracy theory thrown in.
• Tennacious editing about 9/11
  • and scores of others are just meaningless additions of words to make it seem like the conspiracy theories are accepted by some reasonable people, which they are not.
  • and others use unnaceptable not-reliable sources.
  • revert warring.

So, you tell me why we need this editor here - that he adds value to the encylopedia, on balance. I mean, if we were to ban him from conspiracy theories and 9-11 in general, sure. Do you want to mentor him to teach him to stop pushing minority pov? If you want to volunteer to do so, I believe you could help him - but please don't tell me he's a good and valuable user with a history of helping. He's not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am completely disconcerced of this totally absurd review of my editing history. I have no words. It must also have required a lot of time to do this "research" (given the fact that I never met Hipocrite in the articles I edited before)... Hipocrite, why do you do this?--Pokipsy76 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A simple analysis of just the first 3 links cited (for people who understand that matter) shows how Hipocrite is trying to force a negative POV on me without even knowing what he is talking about.--Pokipsy76 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I spent this time because this revert was in such incredible bad faith (not interested in NPOV, just MPOV) that I decided that the cadre of povpushers needed to be dealt with. You filed the RFC, not me. If you think that you can go after MONGO for blocking you and not have your limited history of valuable contributions to mathematics and philosophy compared with your worthless povwarring in 9/11 articles, you are sorely mistaken. He blocked you, I'm justifing the block. It's about you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why do you think that MONGO can legitimately declare war against the "POV pushers" while I can't do what you call "povwarring" against *his* POV pushing and must be blocked? Is it just because his "POV ushing" is on the political side you like best?--Pokipsy76 23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions for physicq210

When you say

"Debated and controversial information continuously inserted (and deleted) by Pokipsy76 and others demonstrates numerous violations of WP:NPOV due to the nature of such edits, involving lack of reliable and reputable evidence of such claims".

what "information continuously inserted (and deleted) by Pokipsy76" are you referring to?

And when you say:

"These edits and ideas advanced by Pokipsy76 and others, commonly constituted as "conspiracy theories" by many, are not (and should not) to be "given equal weight" according the WP:NPOV#Undue weight and should be discussed here"".

what "ideas advanced by Pokipsy76" are you referring to?

And when you say:

In short, both sides may be held liable for uncivil conduct, misuse of editing (and in MONGO's case, admin) priviliges while editing Misplaced Pages. Both sides have subverted established policies, and both mush either rescind, retract, or apologize for inflammatory statements cluttering the talk pages, and ask for second, nay third opinions.

you are not referring to me, right? (Or otherwise what were my "inflammatory statements"?)

--Pokipsy76 19:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My comments

I feel the following information might be relevant to this RfC, since people might assume the 9/11 Truth Movement is small, without reputable people. (I've noticed several comments suggesting this.) Commenters should become familiar with the facts:

According to a national scientific Zogby poll, 45% of Americans want a new 9/11 investigation, including investigating the possibility of government officials being involved in the attacks. 42% of Americans believe the government is covering up 9/11. 43% of Americans are not aware that a third building (WTC 7) completely collapsed on 9/11.

A group of scholars, college professors, and former high level government insiders are seriously questioning the events of 9/11. For instance, this paper has been peer reviewed by two physicists and will be published in a book about 9/11.

Since this is a "special case" (meaning many people not aware of the actual facts), I feel bringing the content of the debated material itself into this page (without initiating a discussion) would be helpful. I admit not being familiar with all of wikipedia's policies and hope that my comments are appropriate.

CB Brooklyn 23:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion as to why the poll is not a reliable source. Among the reasons,

1. Zogby only provides the results of questions #23-28, while they also mention that the poll asked "approximately 81 questions" . What happened to the first 22 and last 54 questions?
2. There are also serious flaws with how the questions were worded, as discussed extensively on talk pages - Talk:7_World_Trade_Center and Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_9#New_Zogby_Poll_Shows_42.25_of_Americans_Believe_a_9.2F11_Cover_Up

-Kmf164 (talk contribs) 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Zogby International is a reputable, scientific, polling organization. Certainly their results are reliable. I doubt very much that any editors in these 9/11 pages are experts at poll writing. The questions Zogby asked were balanced and fair. But my mentioning the poll was only for the purpose of letting commenters know about it. When 42% of the country believe the government is covering something up, and the mainstream media doesn't report it, it's obvious there's a coverup. Besides, according to this Washington Post article, government "documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign."

Also, I'd like to mention this article, as it specifically talks about 9/11 and wikipedia. As time goes on, more and more people will come to edit wiki's 9/11 articles with real, factual information. And they'll be counting on administrators to push a NPOV. (Note: I personally do not necessarily agree with everything in the above article.)

CB Brooklyn 23:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reuters found the LA 9/11 conference this weekend important enough to cover it. CB Brooklyn 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please let's just speak about the policy violations!--Pokipsy76 07:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But my mention of the above was just to let others know that the information is being taken seriously by many people. Understanding this is extremely important. CB Brooklyn 07:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Tom Harrison's comment

I do the scut work that MONGO is doing all the time. I've always waited to block vehement proponents of very minor views until they egregiously violated the rules, or worked with others to force them to 3RR violations (after due discussion was ignored). I told Mongo to do what I do, nothing more and nothing less, because I think it's important that we follow our own rules—don't tell me I have no right to ask him to do that! -- SCZenz 06:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he wasn't absolutely demanding that...basically, if you don't work the 9/11 articles as close as some of us do, there is no way you can fully understand the level of disruption. It ebbs and flows, sometimes nothing much is going on, and other times, it's a war zone. The links above clearly demostrate what I have stated all along...that the articles have been linked to various off wiki sites as a call to arms to go plaster wiki with conspiracy theory cruft. Though many edits get reverted quickly, they are still almost in the realm of vandalism...no, no pictures of penises, but the lack of reliable reference material to support these additions, and the constant attempts to insert it, is really borderline.--MONGO 06:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that very well; there are occasionally ugly flare-ups in physics articles too, and additions that aren't obviously rubbish but aren't technically vandalism. We usually deal with them by getting help in keeping an eye on such silliness and reverting it; very rarely are blocks used, and these are usually for specific and blatant violations of 3RR and NPA after a rubbish-adding user responds angrily to our success at removing the rubbish.

I did my best to review the situation in the articles, and what it looked to me was that the immediate cause of the blocks was edit warring over terms like "conspiracy theorist" vs. "independent researcher," which I have to say I still believe is a content dispute.

I'm not saying that you're a bad guy or that your work isn't important, only that you went a little to far to shrug it off and say it was fine. Tom's view, and even more so the comments of some who agreed with him, not only said it was fine but said that those of us who disagreed had no standing to do so. Well, I have the experience to say so, and I say you should be more careful next time. (And nothing more; that's that as far as I'm concerned.) -- SCZenz 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is similar to my position. Frustration is understandable, but not an excuse. That is why I have urged you (MONGO) to take a break from this topic. However, I also go a bit further than SCZenz in saying that this absolutely was a content dispute by any evaluation, and your own position in it was not neutral point of view. Rather you have argued for using 'most popular point of view'... which is no more in line with policy than 'over-representing minority viewpoints'. I am also troubled by your clearly false claims of 'vandalism', the way you have threatened users for not accepting your POV, et cetera. That various users have said effectively (in the vernacular of my native Iowa), 'all them thar conspiracists are POV pushers so they ought to be indefinitely blocked even if we aint provided no actual evidence of any sort of wrongdoing by thisun', is a sad comment on the state of Misplaced Pages. --CBD 11:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you still misunderstand. MY stress level is always at zero, regardless of how it may appear. I will continue to defend wikipedia from POV pushers of nonsense as long a sthey intend to try and take over the articles. Yes, that's right, POV pushers of nonsense. Naturally, I'll call you to do all my blocks for me.--MONGO 11:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, ok... in that case, you do an excellent impression of someone who is stressed out. :]

By all means, continue to 'defend Misplaced Pages from POV pushers of nonsense'... just don't block people for reverting you or when you've been arguing with them, and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, maybe not call them that... since it aint exactly 'civil'. Clean hands MONGO. That's the important thing. You have to be able to say, 'I had no personal stake in this or animus against the person'... and have it be believable. Which it isn't when you insult them on a regular basis. --CBD 12:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no better description for their advocacy. They are not independent researchers...that would mean they are trying to actually do some real research. There is no other description to use that is accurate. If they feel insulted by the term, then they are going to have to deal with many many editors that agree with me and find nothing offensive or incivil about it at all. They don't like it becuase they want credibility here and they do not understand that this is not a blog. I recommend to you to not wheel war with me over blocks..all you did was comment on my talk page, not even mentioning that you were going to reduce their block periods. If you feel the term conspiracy theorists is so perjorative, then go to the appropriate pages and argue that it be forbidden.--MONGO 13:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're just wrong MONGO. If you can't even think of civil terms to refer to the people you are disagreeing with you are lost and need to find a different way. Personal attacks, incivility, completely groundless blocks (and the block you placed for these two edits was completely groundless), blocks on people you are in a dispute with, specious accusations of 'vandalism', et cetera... are not 'the only way'. They aren't even an allowed way. The fact is that you are every bit as guilty of 'personal attacks', 'incivility', and 'POV pushing' as those you are in conflict with... you have been pushing a more popular POV, but that's absolutely not what the NPOV policy calls for. As to 'wheel warring' - given that your blocks were unquestionably improper in the first place I'll take my chances. I only 'took ownership' of them to clear the conflict of interest. I did reduce the duration of one back to the original because I felt that the extension was unwarranted... the user posted only to complain that the block was improper. Which it was. Again, I'll take my chances on that being acceptable. There are better ways to deal with conflict. They are written into our policies and have a long tradition of success. --CBD 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That wording was not supported by concensus. You accuse me of blocking based solely on those two edits? I know the editor's history, it has been summarized and your banging a dead drum. Is this a coverup for wheel warring with me? YOU are the one that engaged in that, not me.--MONGO 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Coverup? Tell whomever you like. I'm not worried. I certainly can't have objected to your actions to 'cover up' something which I then did several days later.. barring time travel anyway. As to 'I know his history'... yeah, and? You can't block for 'history' either. Since people started questioning your block you have dragged in edits other than those two... from a MONTH before the block. Which are completely irrelevant... especially since those edits weren't 'vandalism' either. --CBD 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not irrelevent if the editor has potentially exhausted the communities patience, as at least one editor here is advocating. To demonstrate this factor, previous editing history is always examined. I feel like I am talking to a person about forest fires (for which I have much experience suppressing) and that person hasn't even sat near a campfire. I worked on the 9/11 articles and worked to ensure Collapse of the World Trade Center had a standardized reference format that eliminated embedded links, I want to make the article an FA...but who has time when the conspiracy theorists continue to try and add misinformation that fails to meet policy. It's a lot of work just trying to maintain a neutral article.--MONGO 21:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cover-up, conspiracy, or just ordinary folks trying to 'hold the line'?

Whether we call it a coverup or not, a look at the discussion page Talk:7_World_Trade_Center shows why Tom Harrison is showing an interest. He, Durin and Kmf164 have been trying to prevent any non-trivial improvement of the article. They have repeatedly reverted without working towards compromise, without making any proper arguments for their actions, and without regard for Misplaced Pages policy. I have certainly found their activity frustrating and discourteous.

Whether we call it a coverup or not, it seems clear that there is a substantial group of admins dedicated to 'holding the line' on 9/11 related articles, regardless of policy, common sense or courtesy.

MONGO's mistake (if it is judged to be one) may best be seen in the context of this group repeatedly and consistently doing this and getting away with it over a long period.

I totally accept that MONGO acted in good faith here, although he may have been wrong to enact the block. The wider issue which needs solved is whether (for example) Tom Harrison is entitled to say

"...those of us who do not want the encyclopedia used as a link farm for conspiracist websites. This is not a content dispute between two groups of reasonable people. This is a persistent effort across several pages to add fringe views, innuendo, and speculation, with links to videos and books. The consensus is against it, the conspiracy-believers' actions have long since become disruptive, and they have resorted to sockpuppetry, deliberately adding false information, and attacking Mongo in an attempt to use his personnal information to discredit him."

which (to me) clearly breaches WP:AGF and seems to bear no relation to the civil discussion and compromise I have tried to engage in on my efforts to improve the article. Indeed, his views here seem to be endorsed by eight other users!

Tom, thank you for your additional comment on the main RfC page. I'm glad to see you can assume good faith. Labelling everybody you disagree with as a conspiracy theorist, a POV-pusher or an adherent to such-and-such a theory is exactly the sort of thing you, Durin, MONGO and so on quite rightly ridicule in the folks you are debating with here. To fall to this level is to lose the high ground, and without the high ground there is nothing to fight for any more. --Guinnog 14:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What we have here, it seems to me, is a case where the good guys in the argument have allowed themselves to get into an "end-justifies-the-means" frame of mind, where any attempt to edit certain articles will be met by organised resistance, including if necessary dishonesty, sophistry and edit-warring. This is clearly not in anybody's best interests. MONGO is just another victim of this unhappy circumstance.

What we need is a steer (maybe even from the very top?) on whether these articles have some special significance and should therefore follow different rules from the rest of the project. This should be done in an open and accountable way. If it was decided that they should be protected, for instance, that would be easy to understand.

As long as the present sorry state continues, incidents like this are bound to continue to happen. --Guinnog 07:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog...I truly do respect your edits and I think you recognize that. I remind you that this Rfc is about my blocks, not Tom Harrison. As far as the poll in which you are mentioning, I have to concur with Tom Harrison and the others. I can't say that it shouldn't have any inclusion, but I find it not entirely nonnotable. For outsiders, what I am discussing is a Zogby Poll which asked questions to a random sample of Americans about some of the issues regrading the events of 9/11. I can't find the link right now, but again, we can resume this elsewhere and concentrate on my blocks here.--MONGO 07:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree on all your points, which is why I put it in talk. Just trying to add some context for the situation, so that others reading can see where this whole situation came from. --Guinnog 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zogby polls are scientific and are representative of the entire country. CB Brooklyn 07:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably at least as much as any poll anyway. We certainly don't have a policy against accepting polls as verifying belief, within all the usual disclaimers about their design etc. --Guinnog 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to MONGO's post

Because understanding the content of the articles involved is important to understanding the situation, I make references below.

First, I will say that MONGO has been bullying a lot of people for a long time. I read his discussions in the 9/11 talk pages many months ago, and his views are nowhere near NPOV. He personally attacks me and others (directly or indirectly) and then blocks me for insulting him back. Because of that, I do not take anything he has to say seriously.

This edit was based on information here and here. When a 20 yr physics professor (Steven E. Jones) from a major university, who writes a paper that's been peer reviewed by two physicists (a paper that mainstream scientists refuse to officially challenge), says that he has scientific evidence of thermite in WTC steel samples, then he should be taken seriously. However... I was understanding and realized that the actual analysis results has not yet been released, so I self-reverted my own post as is shown here.

AFA here, the comment I left explains it all. Only one or two of those entires were blog/opinion sites. And I removed them. On top of that, I removed many more links just to satisfy others. All of those 9/11 links are 100% relevant to Jones. 99% of people visiting this page will be doing so for Jones' 9/11 related work. Morton devonshire had no right deleting those links. Morton is an administrator, and because of his post here, I do not take anything he has to say seriously, either. I reverted him here, then he removed the links as is shown here. I reverted again, and five days later he removes the links again. (This final removal is the one MONGO refers to.)

AFA here, I reverted my own edit again as is shown here. (This is when I started deleting other links that I have added in the past.)

AFA here and the remaining three links MONGO listed, I was merely trying to reach a consensus.

My post here describes further how frustrating it is when having to deal will namecallers. Here's an example of what I and many others put up with:

The above eight links are a clear example of how these individials (two of whom are administrators) are violating the NPOV. Not to mention being outright rude.

One final point: Many of the people involved have been doing nothing but deleting information. I am one of the few who actually adds original content.

CB Brooklyn 07:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Steven Jones has not had his work published by a reliable third party source. It has not appeared in a single repsected trade journal, nor has it been published by his own university. Whether he can show that thermite can sever box columns or not has nothing to do with proving that this happened. Not once have you provided a single piece of evidence that demostrates that controlled demolition happened at the WTC. See..WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:RS.--MONGO 07:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also to clarify, Morton Devonshire is not an administrator.--MONGO 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jones' paper was published on Jones universities website. MONGO's other comments are completely false and a clear sign he should not be in the 9/11 pages. Basically, it boils down to WTC 7. Those who think this collapse was caused by fire will take MONGO's side. All others will not. (NOTE: WTC 7 was NOT hit by an airplane.) CB Brooklyn 07:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not BYU's printing company. It is just a website he or others set up to link to 9/11 websites. The websites you continue to link us to are not even close to being in the realm of reliable sources--MONGO 08:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not "just a website he or others set up to link to 9/11 websites". (That is just speculation by you not based on any facts.) The fact is it's on BYU's Physics and Astronomy Research site under "Energy and Archaeometry". Which other sites are not "realm of reliable sources" as you call it? CB Brooklyn 08:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a sublink...he works in that department...his own univiersity doesn't support his claims, neither do the engineers there. Nothing he has written on the matter has been published by a single neutral third party source...did you read the links I provided? Jones's work is inadmissible here since it violates WP:OR. Reliable sources is a guideline...I didn't make it up...go complain to Jimbo Wales.--MONGO 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Jones. Jones wrote that paper. Jones works at BYU. The paper is on BYU's website. You don't think the paper should be linked here from the site at BYU? There is something seriously wrong with your thinking and you need serious help. There is no evidence showing engineers at BYU do not support Jones. CB Brooklyn 08:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As a tenured professor at the university, he can post what he wishes there...as far as "need serious help" I direct you to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL...futhermore, the engineers at his own university do not support his claims..--MONGO 08:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as the BYU engineers, it has already been explained here that the Dean of the Engineering College had no ground to claim the opinions of his entire faculty. In addition, they are scientists. In they really disagree then they should provide evidence and challenge Jones. Also, the dean removed those statements from the engineering college's website. You need to look deeper into the issues and not automatically trust websites. You have to look at all the information for yourself. The "need serious help" was not meant as a personal attack. Instead, it was meant to direct your way of thinking. You were incinuating that Jones' paper did not have a right to be on his own wiki page. That is total nonsense. CB Brooklyn 09:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Jones's paper does not belong in article space as a cited reference as it hasn't been published. It isn't notable and that's not total nonsense, it's policy. It can be mentioned that he wrote his opinions, but not sure how that fits into anything if we can't cite it. Many of those websites you link to are purely ones that are controlled by a few webmasters and they are not science based, I'm sorry, but they are simply not. Don't try to back out of the comment about me being in need of serious help...a personal attack such as that is easily identified for what it is.--MONGO 11:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I will let your statements above speak for themsleves. CB Brooklyn 14:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on MONGO's response

I noted that MONGO's response did involve a lot of accusations not directly connected with the block and the reason given for it, and to make them appear connected he tried to change again the reason (stated before as "for vandalism", "for reverting" and "for POV pushing") to "exausting the patience of community". To do this he tried to put into the case facts that are far in time, connected with other discussions, other voices, other matter... all this just to build up a bad image of myself. So I will reply to all of his assertions:

Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs) reverted edits that I had been working on that had cite template references in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article , , restoring to a version that had embedded links. I had recently redone all the references in the article to make them use the cite template style, for uniformity and to eliminate the embedded links. Not that this is a big concern, as embedded links work fine, but again, this was about maintaining some sort of uniformity. I asked him to not do this and also had asked people to not do this on the article talk page.

1) I just reverted MONGO's revert 2) I also explained the motivation: MONGO didn't provide any justification 3) I didn't consider at all the problem of the embedded links, just I was disappointed by the unmotivated revert to truth seeker (that instead did comment his edits with "clarity, POV") made by MONGO.

Pokispy76 has also been warned not to refer to other editors changes as vandalism....his repsonse to that was "ROTFL!", so he didn't seem to take that with much seriousness.

It was the beginning and I was not familiar with the meaning of wikipedia:vandalism, and I hadn't a correct word to describe the behavior of the people that I was accusing (and I also find disappointing that threat for misusing the words). What's the problem and what's the relevance with this RfC?

More recently, Pokipsy76 perfomed the following edits in which there was no concensus for, (, , , , , , , , , , . In these edits, Pokipsy76 altered the terms conspiracy theories to various other wordings, but was later reverted by myself, Tom Harrison, Jersey Devil, and others.

MONGO here is forgetting to specify that all these edits were *reverts*: I was reverting to the original article the edits that didn't have the consensus, were poorly justified and seems to be POV pushing. I was not alone in doing these reverts.

Aside from User:TruthSeeker1234, who was blocked indefinitely for using a malicious sockpuppet strawman account, no one else seems to have disagreed with this wording. In fact, the only comment I can find to the discussion page for the Collapse of the World Trade Center, in which he mentions anything about the wording conspiracy theories is here, aside from the most recent additions he added, which were mainly about me. So I see no concensus for his changes at all.

User:Raemie , me, User:TruthSeeker1234, User:Friday , User:EyesAllMine have opposed to this wording, the original article didn't have this wording and therefore MONGO was clearly trying to push that wording (that is, by the way, not NPOV) against the consensus and without any discussion.

He was warned and he got blocked by me...there is a point that if you have no concensus to make a change, and haven't even argued about it all on the discussion page of that article, that reverts, repeatedly changing to a nonconcensus version, is disruption.

Here MONGO could be talking about himself because he was tryng to make changes (not me) and he clearly didn't have the consensus. Moreover it is not clear what does he mean by "he was warned": the only warning I recived was about embedded links, but I've not been accused of restoring embedded links.

After being blocked, Tom Harrison reviewed the block as did Pschemp, and after the unblock notice was removed by her, Pokipsky76 put it back. she removed it again, , Pokipsky76 reposted it , so Pschemp ended up protecting his talk page.

I don't see the relevance of these facts: I was not familiar with the mechanism of blocking and unblocking and User:Pschemp's action - in the way it was done (without any kind of comment on my talk page) - appeared to my eyes as some kind of vandalish action, I really needed some time to realize that she was working as an admin (and this disappointed me)... but what is the relevance to the case we are discussing of?

I see little more than disruptive editing patterns in this editor to the point of exhausting the communties patience.

What about WP:AGF? Isn't all this putting togheter facts to build a bad point of view completely contrary to the spirit of WP:AGF? I have not being collecting facts digging in the history of MONGO, I just ask for a specific violation and would like to speak about this.--Pokipsy76 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You may have been "reverting" but this was against the other editors that clearly disagreed with your changes. You claim that your version "controlled demolition" as opposed to "conspiracy theories" is the older one, well, who knows, the article has been around for a long time. The point is, if there was a concensus to have the words "controlled demolition" there instead of "conspiracy theories" then why are you having to change it (revert) after numerous other editors have? I also tried, but failed, to find that you had made any real attempt to discuss this matter on the article talk page, to try and establish concensus. Instead, you revert to your version repeatedly.--MONGO 07:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1) To see that "controlled demolition" as opposed to "conspiracy theories" is the older version just look at the history (since November 2005 )

2) I am not saying that the older version had a consensus, I am saying that you were tryng to make it change without the consensus ("if you did have a consensus then why are you having to change it (revert) after numerous other editors have?")

3) Have you done "any real attempt to discuss this matter on the article talk page to try and establish concensus" or "instead you reverted to your version repeatedly"?

4) Do you realize that you keep accusing me of the same identical behaviour that you had?

--Pokipsy76 08:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you are trying to change it..and have been off and on for some time now. I haven't reverted that information nearly as often as you as there have been many others that disagreed with your edits, period. What part of that do you not understand? If you are doing all these reverts, what else explains it...and I see...almost no attempts by you on the discussion page to get a concensus for your change. The older versions don't even have a section to this stuff. We made the mistake months ago even allowing it in, now that we have, that's not enough, you want more, and then when we give you more, that still won't be enough.--MONGO 08:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1) I was trying to *keep*, not to change. You were trying to change so you nedded to do some "attempts on the discussion page to get a concensus for your change", not me.

2) In this RfC all the edits of the case have been listed: you did 2 revert and I did 2 reverts.

3) In doing other reverts I was never alone otherwise I couldn't be successfull due to the 3RR, and I think there is not so much difference between the number of reverts of mine, of yours, of tom Harrison or of TruthSeeker. If you think there is a significative difference and you think this is relevant for something please do the counting and explain how is it relevant.

4) I didn't "want more": I was just trying to avoid changes that seemed to me to be POV pusing. Maybe you are speaking about someone else.

--Pokipsy76 09:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pokipsy76...your first edit to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article is here......I see that a short edit war about the terms to be used was going on for a few edits prior to your revert. Before that, the section doesn't even get a mention...there is in places, no link whatsoever to alternative theories...something I think should be reinstated.--MONGO 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"controlled demolition" is NPOV. "conspiracy theories" is not. CB Brooklyn 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

About the Outside view by Kmf164

This user is trying to suggest the idea that there was a dispute between people that tried to *add* "conspiracy theories" in the article and people who defended the correct information. Maybe it has happened some times ago but this view doesn't describe the present situation: the article has had the small section about the controlled demolition theories since november 2005 and today there are users (as MONGO, Tom Harrison, Morton Devonshire) that repeatedly try to push POV in the section removing names and internal links of the people involved , trying to introduce the word "conspiracy" as much as they can without any discussion, in a case deleting completely the section and (last) blocking users that opposed to this edits. This is definitely not the way to work in wikipedia and should not be supported.--Pokipsy76 09:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, myself and others have opposed your choice of wording? Therefore, you admit there is no concensus for your wording, and you have had to edit war to force your wording into the article.--MONGO 11:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

To make an edit war it is necessay to have two parties both edit warring. I have no problem if you like to see my *and your* behaviour as an edit war.--Pokipsy76 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit war is between you and numerous other editors...meaning, you are edit warring. They are reverting you...and this is going on at various articles. Believe whatever you want if that makes you feel better, but fencing with you here is becoming a circular argument. It's not a personal thing, your edits have been reverted by many others on a regular basis now, so that will probably continue.--MONGO 13:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It has already been shown that I was not alone in the disputes we are talking about and I don't see where do you see these "numerous other editors" that are warring against me and what would this be relevant for.--Pokipsy76 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite and mmx1 causing severe TROUBLE

as can be seen in the edits here, Hipocrite and mmx1, who are both in middle of a heated debate here, are removing pertinent information from that site. This behavior starting following a self defense verbal attack on mine .

For these people to remove this information while in a debate, they obviously don't understand right from wrong.

Hipocrite just threatened me with the 3rv rule, which obviously does not apply in this situation. In anything, his account should be banned until he learns proper behavior.

CB Brooklyn 16:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone in a heated debate is definitely not going to have a NPOV. For Hipocrite to have wanted my post above put back here (meaning he thinks he's in the right) is another clue to his inability to know how to edit properly. CB Brooklyn 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What has that got to do with this Rfc? Take that to the appropriate talk pages please.--MONGO 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)