User talk:Thomas B/Archive

Controlled demo, WTC, etc.

Any advice on how to deal with this situation would be appreciated. (Especially from someone who does not have very strong opinions about the subject.) Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center--Thomas Basboll 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So far you're doing what you need to, which is keeping cool and staying on firm ground. I think sticking with that strategy is your best bet.

One of your problems is that the last person to try large changes to the article was a pretty difficult fellow. He would often start out proposing what seemed to be reasonable changes and then get less reasonable. Whether he didn't have the discipline to keep his POV in check, or was trying to sneak things in, I don't know. I think a lot of people are waiting to see if you crack under pressure and say something nutty.

Part of the skepticisim directed at you is also because you don't have much of an edit history. It would probably go easier for you if you had a bunch of edits in an unrelated field (such as your area of expertise) that could be checked over for tone and content. Also, it may have been easier if you had started out as a participant in the discussion at the collapse page rather than the principal. I'm not certain about that, though - It's rather polarized and anything you say will likely get you lumped into one of the two camps. Toiyabe 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. I may take your advice. I've done some big (but few) changes on the social epistemology page, some of them a while back before I decided to use my real name. I guess I could just let all this lie for bit longer before actually making the edits.--Thomas Basboll 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently new to Wikipedia, you jumped into a contentious article, made some improvements, and largely had your way with an extensive rewrite. Rejoice and be glad. You will be in a better position to judge Mongo's behavior after you have more experience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Thomas - just want to flash you a big smile for the great job you are doing at Collapse of the World Trade Center. You are apparantly the one needed to get this articles standard up. Keep up the good work :) EyesAllMine 09:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, it's been interesting. After the original controversy I reread the article and thought that much of the policy talk (POV and OR especially) was pretty minor given the level of the prose. It seemed especially strange to banish even the dismissal of CD, when NIST's own account was hardly on the page at all. Anyway, I'm glad you like it.--Thomas Basboll 10:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Also, I want to say keep up the good work on the World Trade Center. Dont let anyone take that site down. --Bangabalunga 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic/Statics in Scope of the Search subsection

I've reworded the "The scope of the search" subsection. I hope it helps folks understand the difference between static and dynamic a bit better. If you are still unclear, let me know - it needs to be understandable to a reasonably intelligent non-specialist.

Structural Engineering is not my field. I've been rather hoping that someone with experiance in that field would step in, but no luck yet. Toiyabe 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In case you're wondering

I won't read my resume to you, but I am well educated...so when I see posts on my talk page declaring that you believe I am "a man of a particular kind of science at best" it's pretty hard to take you seriously. I'm not an engineer, but indeed I do know what the differences between reliable sources and those that aren't and I don't appreciate accusations to the contrary.--MONGO 20:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Do a read through of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, with the last one, concentrating on the undue weight clause...which is very important in ensuring we don't give undue weight where it has little or no basis in known science.--MONGO 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth vs Round Earth compared to Controlled demolition vs Massive destuction due to tremendous kenetic energy and massive fires are entirely different things. Here's the difference: the first comparison is benign...no one was killed, no one is hurt by believing in a flat earth. No one is hurt or bothered by whether someone believes in UFO's or the tooth fairy either. Those that postulate controlled demolition adversely affect the quality fo this encyclopedic effort if they try to tweak wording or twist the evidence to support dogma with no basis in science. As is clearly demonstrated in the undue weight clause and in WP:NOR, if there is nothing that has been properly published in any reputable source, then it is best to exclude it. We are not "after the truth" we are after what can be verified. If the "truth" isn't verifiable, then we don't include it.--MONGO 21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, see you on the discussion pages at the article. Bye.--MONGO 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Work

That's some good editing. Intro, origins, and main approaches are interesting, accurate, neutral and don't seem like they could be the object of too much contention. It's been a long time coming. Good work! SkeenaR 09:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You think you might want to have a look at the Conspiracy theory article? If you get a chance, maybe have a look-see. I think it needs a lot of work to be both neutral and factually descriptive. Your ideas or input would be appreciated. It's a difficult subject. SkeenaR 09:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for an opinion

Hello Thomas. I particulalry admire your edits to Collapse of WTC and your discussion on the talk page and I see your point of view as "professionally neutral" and very resonable. That is why I would like to ask you for an opinion in a discussion on Talk:Steven_E._Jones under "Currently investigating?". Just if you could look on the second part of this discussion, where we are trying to settle whether Steven Jones's work about WTC collapse is to be reported as a "research" or not. Thank you.

A good example - that what was needed (I must remember that). That is where experience comes in handy. :) Thank you. --SalvNaut 22:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence?

I finished writing you an email, and just then saw your message :) Heh, I'll reply soon. --SalvNaut 14:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I got the point with "published paper" :).

Do you think this whole mess at BYU will make it better for the case to be clarified? I mean: is there a chance that they will have a really close look on his findings, cool look - free from prejudice? --SalvNaut 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Steven Jones

I've not the time to re-enter the fray right now, but saw the latest developments re: BYU and Jones, and also saw your comments on the matter. I just wanted to say that, regardless of how the matter turns out, I appreciate that you seem prepared to alter your stance based on available info. It reflects quite well on you. Happy editing. Levi P. 18:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the summery. Levi P. 03:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Thompson's Terror Timeline

• No.--Sloane 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes.--Sloane 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• I guess I just felt like it. --Sloane 20:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see [1]. Tyrenius 22:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins and reception

Okay, I just think Jones' remarks are too trivial to mention. --Sloane 21:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not really but his claim that he predicted the attack is. --Sloane 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• I believe it is yes. I edited the reference to belief in a global network back in, fine?--Sloane 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am astonished that a major conspiracy theorist's claim to have predicted the attack has been termed trivial. It is a significant illumination of his mentality — for good or bad. That remark, not to mention others I have encountered, borders on trolling behaviour. Tyrenius 01:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

9/11 related

The thing is to make sure any articles are properly referenced. They can always be prepared on a user sub-page, before they are put into the main article space, and thus presenting them in their best state for other editors, rather than in their unformed state. Tyrenius 01:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's second time...

I ask you for opinion and/or help. There is an article 7 World Trade Center in which there is a section "Collapse", and there are many unsourced statements. I've tried to add those two of mine from Collapse of WTC but MONGO of course reverted. You seem to know how to discuss with him - I am not sure if I can handle it by myself (at this moment he refuses to discuss and I can't do nothing more because of WP:3RR). Of course if you don't have time to bother with it - no problem, I'll do my best. --SalvNaut 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Controlled demolition AfD request

Hi, an admin recommended I ask someone else to make note of this, per this comment by User:JoshuaZ. Would you be willing per that advice to post that/draw attention to the fact of the previous AfD and the people involved? It seems that this article was AfD'd again immediately after the last ended. I suspect that MONGO will become incensed if I do it myself, as we both MONGO and myself got blocked over this from edit warring. I'm asking 1-2 other editors as well. I am asking you as you've participated in the AfD, and Joshua recommended I do this. Thanks. · XP · 04:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That was the idea, just to ensure it was crystal clear to not just the closing admin but also to new users seeing the AfD that this was just extremely recently AfD'd, then AfD'd immediately again. If you do not wish to I understand. I don't know if it would inflame things, I just agree with Joshua that if I did it, it would certainly inflame the mess from earlier today with MONGO. I just wished to make sure that all viewers had a crystal clear image of the entire situation. · XP · 06:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Controlled Demolition of WTC

Thanks for letting me know, I was away from my computer all yesterday. Whilst I think it was inevitable that the article would receive another afd nomination, it is rather quick- the nominator should have left more time to see if the article would be significantly improved. However, now it is running I don't think I (or anyone else) should close it- just add your comments to the afd as usual (which can of course include the above argument, but should also argue from a content, not just procedural point of view). The first afd was rather unusual anyway so having a second afd with this particular article in focus is justifiable from that point of view. Petros471 07:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

if you wouldn't mind...

I created a special page for my own use at User:XP/PendingDeletionsofNote. If you should happen to see any AfDs, MfDs, etc., that you think I should know about, please feel free to update this page to notify me--it works for me as an include to both my User and Talk page, so I will see it. I unfortunately don't always have time to look at the whole listings of those sections, or keep up. This will help a lot. Also, if you want, feel free to help yourself to using it as well on your own page. I added instructions for the curious in case they don't know fancy wikicode. Feel free to let anyone else know about my page and it's function--I don't mind more people knowing about, so that I can be aware. · XP · 06:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

9/11 post protracted AfD

We posted on the article talk page at about the same time. I think what has happened might be called "A procedural victory" rather than anything else. I suggested just below your post that it ought to be a miniwikiproject. Looks like we have the same concept. I was going to suggest that, especially since you seem to know the content of this article well, you might (a) move your post down into the putative "mini...." area, and (b) might wish to co-ordinate things. After all you do seem to react calmly to criticism.  :) Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, when faced with another editor who impugns integrity one needs to exercise militant patience that is inexhaustible, and probably answer every item except the integrity issue. I have not studied the papers, I have no knowledge of "who is correct" because I am simply standing back and attempting to be helpful, rather than being involved. I would say, simply, that correctness will out. Please continue to keep calm. Each editor is different, and some will express their thoughts in a way that is distasteful to others. An example I'm ignoring at the moment is somewhat strident at Talk:ARA San Luis rather near the bottom. Fiddle Faddle 19:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial"

I agree on shorter, and the total edit is now just the one adjective. I really couldn't see how either side of the debate could argue that the subject is not controversial, even "highly" controversial. The debates on this subject are limited in number, but very heated, as many talk pages and AfDs show. But "controversial" in the intro definately helps frame the argument into (slightly) more NPOV. Guyanakoolaid 07:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates, banners etc

I like the idea of the banner at the top, I suggest you add "You are welcome to join our co-ordinated effort - please simply make yourself known on the talk page" (am about to add it).

Re the template, I am unsue if it works technically. I copied and pasted "stuff", but feel at total liberty to bash it about Fiddle Faddle 10:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

CD Hypothesis intro

I've admired your work on this article. Lots of good points!

But (darn, there's so often a "but") I've reverted the edits you made for style in the intro. Though I respect the attention you gave it, I think the text was cleaner and smoother before.

(I was going to write you that editing for style is something I do professionally and so I trust my judgment on this. But now I've found out you do it professionally too. Well, pleased to meet a colleague!)

In any case, there's one point I hesitate about. You changed "The Controlled-Demolition Hypothesis proposes controversially" to "The Controlled-Demolition Hypothesis is the controversial proposition." Did you do that because a hypothesis is by definition a proposition? That would be a good reason. It seems to me that "The hypothesis proposes" works anyway (like "The theory proposes. . ."). But what do you think?

The line you added about conspiracy theories--"which include the official investigation of the collapses in allegations of a cover-up"--added useful content. But it weighted down the sentence in which it appeared, and perhaps doesn't belong in the intro. Maybe we can find another solution.

Best wishes.

Cordially, O Govinda 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that double "by." Definitely right!

O Govinda 11:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I rather like "proposes controversially." (I even like the slightly odd placement of the adverb.) But I'm not stuck on it.

Normally I'd find it hard to stick to working "one sentence at a time," but on edits and reverts between you and me I think that would be fine.

Best wishes.

O Govinda 11:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So, these examples are wrong?

Interesting...there are at least four examples where Seabhcan has made some rather broad strokes against a country and it's people.--MONGO 13:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing wrong with the fourth. That, in any case, is what I've argued. Given the "part of the problem", "many Americans ..." and "a kind of religious dogma" qualifications, these aren't even especially universal generalizations. In general, I think we should adjust for context, and what Seabhcan means is clearly (in all cases) "the editors working on the article with an apparently American bias". I have never formed a picture in my mind of Seabchan as anti-American or in any way bigotted in that regard. His remarks just display his frustration which he, understanably, traces to certain habits of mind in other editors. Every now and then he generalizes, but few readers would extend these outbursts beyond the contexts in which they were made. Even to take offense at the these remarks (given the sort opposition he's receiving -- from, among others, you) is a bit silly. To take action is, yes, I agree with Abe, a waste of time. Best, as always, --Thomas Basboll 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I for one, hope that you stay despite Mongo.[2] ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comments

RE: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:Thomas_Basboll I really found your comments insightful. You may want to add an edit history to back up you claims, partiularly the biting of the newbie by the admin. Travb (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put something together.--Thomas Basboll 15:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Not beyond what is already on Talk:Steven E. Jones, which we could conveniently use to talk about the article at a measured pace. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being abrupt. I'm trying to do some work that does not involve Jones, clearing out the speedy deletion backlog. The repeated appearence of the "you have mail" bar is distracting. If you want to talk about my recent edit, I'll watch the talk page, think about what you say, and reply when I get a minute. As we agree, that is what the article talk page is for. Of course, if something urgently requires my attention, please do leave a message on my talk page, or email me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Scholars situation

Tom, sorry I haven't gotten back to you - there is a lot going on with the group right now which requires all my time. My efforts were to keep Fetzer's false statements from being propagated on wikipedia. He has already said things like "he removed" Jones, yet has no such authority. The more we can keep from linking to untruths the better. The membership is being informed via email of the situation from Jones' side so there is not a similarly "public" record of it to draw from to keep balance. I agree with deletions wherever possible as lawsuits may emerge and the record on here is permanent. bov 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's RfA against Seabhcan

Hey. I just wanted to say that i found your comments on the discussion page worthwhile, and felt that you should move them to the front page as official evidence. Tucked away on the discussion page like they are, i think they might be easily missed -- but having shared a similar experience at the hands of MONGO, et al, i would prefer that they be more prominent and noticable. Stone put to sky 07:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One of your edits got mangled

You recently edited talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#EVIDENCE AND AFTERMATH link, probably within the last hour or two. Unfortunately all that showed up of your edit was your signature, in addition to which the heading following it got mangled. I have repaired the heading, and left your signature there, but you probably will want to repost your comment. Ireneshusband 00:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Social Epistemology

Hi- I had been wondering where some of the content on Social Epistemology went since I last looked at it (e.g. the mention of the contemporary philosophers who are still cited at the bottom, but who have been removed). And it looks as though those sections have been moved off of the main page and onto the Talk page under your comment. Was that intentional? As it looks like an error, I'm going to move them back, but let me know. And I'm sure the overall layout could continue to be improved. Regards, CHE 16:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Actually, now that I look more carefully, it looks as though you did intend to remove it to fix it up--perhaps to add a third section. But that happened back in early August and it's still on the Talk page. Even if that material was removed to improve it so to speak, it doesn't seem to me wrong--or at least so wrong that it doesn't belong on the main page. Will you restore it? Or I can. Thanks! CHE 16:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		for your numerous, and well-written, contributions to articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Even though we disagree more often than not, you deserve this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been very interesting so far and I'm learning lots. Thanks for that too. (I'd like to think I contribute mainly to articles about the collapse of the WTC, btw, but I don't object to the characterization. ;-) )--Thomas Basboll 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks

I see that now about plus sign at the top of the page here. I wanted to say that I see you have cleaned up the article a lot and it looks much better than it did when I last saw it a week ago.--Beguiled 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was praising you for letting go of your obvious POV that conspiracy theories needed to be more pronounced on Wikipedia. Now that you failed to see praise for what is is, I guess we're back to square one. Or is that knowing that there is no way that the article will ever be anything other than a place for those who wish to espouse their version of reality the motivating factor that helped you come to your senses more? I have a lot to add or more specifically, to delete, in my efforts to help wikipedia look like a legitimate encyclopedia rather than a rubbish heap of insanity.--Beguiled 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE?

Thomas...remember when you told me that as a newbie editor I had bitten you? Well, the user above is a newbie editor and what I am seeing from you on his talkpage [3] is far worse than anything I dished out to you. Maybe you're right...but none of that exchange is likely to convince him to do as you ask.--MONGO 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nicholas Rockefeller

I wanted to support the AfD for this article. I have not had much experience with the AfD process, but I am wondering if all of the steps listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion have been taken (esp I II and III at the bottom). The reason I ask is that the article is not listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 6 or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 7. It looks to me like something it missing, but I could be (and I regularly am) wrong.  ??? --KenWalker | Talk 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Rockefeller

I do understand the need for absolute verification for this to be of any importance, for anyone. It clearly doesn't help anyone to stand at the fence screaming "Conspiracy! Conspiracy!" without any hard unrefutable evidence. I just got a little carried away you know, it's just that I have a feeling that this person could be of critical importance to the whole global corporate/policestate theory. But a hunch is not fact, and I thank you for pointing that out before the hate-messages started falling into my inbox.

Additionally, I just want to commend you on the message you sent me related to the deletion.. Very polite, and you have my total respect for that. Also, you are clearly just as interested in finding the truth as the rest of us. So, thanks for being here man! =)

--Rubyscube 10:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment fixed. Forgot to log in. :P

--Rubyscube 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, what do you make of this? http://www.webinaction.com/tcg/team.html

"Former Managing Partner at RockVest, a Rockefeller family investment vehicle."

--Rubyscube 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

MONGO

FYI there is a report on AN/I. Tyrenius 02:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There's about a million other pages that need editing. Rather than leaving outright, perhaps you might take a wikibreak from that neighborhood and focus elsewhere? — coelacan talk — 10:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, which I will certainly consider. Right now, I'm still optimistic about resolving the dispute. But, yes, if I leave, that may be temporary. And if I come back, I may stay away from places where these sorts of things happen. But there's also a principle here. If the result of Mongo's behaviour here is to push an editor who does the sort of work I do off the pages he's working on, and if this is not seen as a community issue, then I don't belong here. (There is some indication that this is being taken seriously as a community issue. Hence my optimism.) As I've made clear at the AN/I, the thickness of my skin isn't the problem here. It's my weariness at the necessity of having such a thick skin that will drive me off. I am certain, for example, that many editors who would make really good and careful contributions to these articles stay away because of the treatment they get by people like Mongo. To pre-emptively call them wimps or babies is not constructive. That is effectively the tone Mongo seems to be allowed to establish on the talk pages: "there will be much heat, little light, and if you like that sort of thing, join in". Some people do like that sort of thing and they are to a large extent making Wikipedia what it is today. My departure will not be seen as a loss by all members of the community, even those who do may see it as the better of two imperfect ways of dealing with the conflict. Right now, I'm learning something about my (still somewhat newfound) community. Let's see how it turns out. Sorry about the long response; but you've given me an opportunity think out loud about these things a bit. Thanks.--Thomas Basboll 10:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never interacted with MONGO so I am not commenting on the specifics here. But we do have wikipedia:dispute resolution resoureces that all editors are encouraged to make use of. And getting involved in a WikiProject that is unrelated to the field of your dispute, such as WP:BOOKS (I'm just pulling that out of a hat), can help you get acquainted with processes alongside other editors who soon become familiar. Some WikiProjects are dead, though, you've got to measure the amount of activity on the talk page. I don't know if that sort of thing appeals to you, but do keep WP:DR close at your fingertips.,, just don't jump through to the end too quickly. Later, — coelacan talk — 11:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll keep it in mind. BTW, I saw my appeal to Tyrenius as a first step in a dispute resolution process. If that didn't work, I had intended to ask someone like Tom Harrison to try, and if he didn't want to, then someone else, perhaps more or less at random. That failing, the next step, I thought, would be and RfC. Part of the comments I would want would have been to assess my own behaviour. Did I bring this on myself? (In a sense, obviously yes, but more specifically...) Is Mongo's response generally acceptable? Etc. After that, I would make my decision to stay or go. I'm already getting a reasonable sense of the community standards now, and a sense of the range of interpretation of both our remarks. That's a learning experience for both of us, I hope. I think enough people have now tried to resolve the respute to justify an RfC, but I'm going to give a few days before I make a decision on that. Does that sound like a reasonable approach to take? Thanks again for your interest in this.--Thomas Basboll 11:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two kinds of RFCs. An RFC on the page itself that you are disputing over, the content dispute, would always be welcome at any time. An RFC on MONGO's behavior, I cannot comment on. I haven't looked into it, I don't have a good idea of whether or not that would be advised. You should ask some editors who have actually been watching the whole situation. Sorry I can't be of more help, but I really haven't read this stuff at all. I just noticed by a glance at WP:ANI that you said you were considering leaving so I decided to say hi. But I really don't know what sort of situation you and MONGO are in. — coelacan talk — 11:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(untitled)

Sorry to see you go. In any case, thanks for what was obviously a tremendous effort on your part. DriveBy27 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

(The following discussion is about this draft of an RfC [4])

Dear Thomas, I'm sure there are many users who will endorse the summary. Please have a look at this recent discussion.

In my endorsement I would stress on the "evil mechanism" which is in work when users are faced with Mongo's kind of response. Instead of resolving the issue, checking one's own facts, sources, one starts to fight, or abandons the case (this is what Mongo is always hoping for). This is not productive mostly because, as you've pointed out in the summary, one's motives are at stake, not the edit in question. Well, policies WP:FAITH, WP:DBN say it all in essence.

Anyway, it's a sorrow decision from you not to edit anymore. Please come from time to time to make an edit, even if in terrorem of unnecessary comments by, and discussions with, some. SalvNaut 19:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you are working on not accusing others of making attacks when you yourself have done some too. No one wants the articles here taken over by conspiracy theory silliness. That is simply the way it goes and I applaud anyone who does what they can to stop it. That type of silliness simply wrecks whatever little reliability this website has.--Beguiled 21:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess we disagree about the degree to which the means justifies the ends. Silliness should be avoided, yes, but not by sacrificing civility. As for whether people who have been incivil in the past should be able to point out that behaviour in others, note that the desired outcome of my RfC is precisely for Mongo to help fight the sort of incivility he consistently practices. If occasionally crossing the line to incivility disqualifies one from criticizing it, then we may as well just give up the norm altogether. That said, what attack of mine are you talking about?--Thomas Basboll 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for your nice message. I think it would be better to make a new article. I heard that the 9/11 article is guarded by people like wolves. It is so true. Do you know this article? [5] There are too many incosistants with what President Bush and others said about their actions on 9/11 that it can't be believed, Good night Mr Baseball. I'm logging off now. I am try to come back tomorrow if I have the hours. Babalooo 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thomas Basboll

Dear Thomas Basboll,

I've just sent you an email to reply your concern at my Talk Page. There are a few things I'd like to express to you regarding your dispute with MONGO that I prefer to remain private, as this whole matter has already caused too much stress for everyone involved, mostly MONGO and you; but definitely not limited to you both. I hope it helps to at least give you my input and try and help to put this issue behind us all. Best regards, Phaedriel - 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally wish to thank you for both replying my email, which I will re-reply as soon as possible, and subsequently reconsidering the RfAr against MONGO. I hope this serves to put all this behind us and go on with other more pleasant business. Have a relaxing wikibreak, and I sincerely hope our interactions in the future are more pleasant and fruitful. Best regards, Phaedriel - 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your mail. Your optimism is puzzling, however. But perhaps you know something I don't. There is nothing to indicate to me that anything is behind us. I stand by my statement in the RfA, which I withdrew when an arbitrator called it frivilous. Point taken.--Thomas Basboll 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This may come-off cold-hearted, but I don't intend it to: You say you "stand by my statement in the RfA". Well, of course you are entitled to dig your heels in and say that the arbitrators were just plain wrong, but that doesn't really help you here. Instead, why don't you accept the arbitrators' decision for what it is: A decision by our enforcement body, and a pretty fair indication of community consensus.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, ArbCom declined to take the case. It did not arbitrate the case. I think I understand why at least one arbitrator thought it was frivilous, and those who declined to hear the case thought it not worth their time. It's a bit like the Supreme Court saying "We're not going to decide whether you parking ticket was fair." I had simply misunderstood the role of ArbCom in a dispute like the one I stated. So, in my view, ArbCom has refused to settle the issue. The arbitrators were no doubt right to do so and I am not saying they were wrong about anything. My statement was right but delivered to the wrong place, that's all.--Thomas Basboll 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

As an Arbitration Committee clerk, I will de-list your request, since you have withdrawn it. As an individual, however, I want to say that the fact that this request was declined does not mean that you should stop contributing to the project. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Too much text/

Your most recent missive was shockingly too much text. If your goal in writing that was to be read and contemplated, you failed before anyone even started looking. If your goal was to soapbox, please go somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

seffen

it is really weird that i can not get an answer from seffen or from the cambridge press officer named in the press release. i have written five times. Peterhoneyman 15:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to Seffen (albeit only once) as well. My question was about his take on Cherepanov, i.e., whether his calculations also refute that paper or is specifically aimed at controlled demolition (as the press release suggests). No answer. I suspect he's gotten too much hate mail from conspiracy theorists and that any question about the WTC gets sorted in the same pile.--Thomas Basboll 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

i suspect you are right -- i have seen some really vile stuff on the CT blogs. Peterhoneyman 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of useful information (and necessary discussion) is being burried by invective. It's not 50/50 but it is coming from both sides. I really don't blame engineers for staying away from this issue but, for precisely that reason, I wonder whether anyone really understands the mechanics of the WTC collapse (I mean its progression, not its initiation). I know I still don't really get it. And there really has been very little discussion of it in the literature. (I'm still waiting for the new edition of structural engineering textbook that can explain it to students, for example).--Thomas Basboll 19:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

i learned a lot from bažant's "... did and did not ..." paper. i found the discussions of crush-down and crush-up, comminution, expelled air, and the LDEO data especially interesting. the mechanics of progressive collapse has been a topic in structural dynamics textbooks for a couple of decades. google book search can point you to some textbooks if you're really interested. Peterhoneyman 23:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, book search has been my method so far. Also looking at table of contents and indexes. What I'm looking for is the WTC collapse as "textbook case" of progressive collapse (Bazant, after all, says it is the most striking example). I agree about the did and did not paper.--Thomas Basboll 06:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

check out my user talk page -- w00t!!! thank you wayne! Peterhoneyman 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My experience is as a consultant for the fire protection industry and (former) member of the National Fire Protection Association so i have some experience with fires in steel structures. I can accept the WTC's collapsing due to weakened columns but not in less than several hours without some other factor involved. Whether this be some yet to be discovered natural factor or CD...who knows until the evidence is in and investigated? Even NISTS own tests indicated sagging did not occur in less than 90 minutes in their worst case scenario and then only in some columns.
It seems to me that Seffens paper is inadequate to explain anything other than that the towers fell and we knew that already. All it does is confirm that the official theory is plausable which is not disputed even by CD supporters and it doesn't in any way rule out the CD theory. A glaring error is that Seffen assumes the core was uniform, box columns 36"x16" and 4" thick for the towers entire height (he assumes equal resistance for every floor unless i misunderstood him), the lower 50 floors had columns 54"x26"x5" thick (8" thick at the lowest floors) with a 6" thick internal cross brace not to mention that the concrete walls were 17' (foot) thick. I'll go so far as to say the paper is not even worth mention as it is no different than a blogger repeating what Steven Jones wrote (without attribution) and adding a bit of his own take on it and we know that some editors wont allow those type of references lol. Wayne (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have added your name to involved parties in the MONGO 2 arbitration case as shown here.--MONGO (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Appology

I was not aware that I was being uncivil when I said it. It was not my intention to be uncivil. I am sorry. Thank you for the link. Tony0937 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

it got PM right

It may say exactly what the source said but the source misquoted what the subject said. Romero only made two statements: "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." Reporter makes a statement saying Romero has got a lot of email and Romero replies: "I'm very upset about that, I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen." Everything else in the retraction is what the reporter asked or said. The actual quote should be more appropriate. BTW...what did you think of Seffens paper? Wayne (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Romero may have said that to PM but it is still a misquote when compared to his original statement. He said planted explosives were definitely the cause and that "the collapse resembled other controled demolitions" (see the context?). Highlighting that he said "resembled" does not negate his original belief that explosives were involved (as PM implies) as it uses the word in isolation thus losing it's context. As such the original is more reliable than PM. I also point out that the WP article falsely implies that he is refering to his mention of explosives rather than the collapse. Wayne (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Two simple facts?

I really like this Thomas..."this is not about "CT" vs. "OCT"; it is about getting two simple facts as accurately presented as possible" there are no facts regarding controlled demolition of the WTC. I had hoped you would come to realize this but apparently you have not. You argue incessantly about only one topic and you are a single purpose account who I see is misusing this resource to promote your agenda. I am going to be very busy over the next week, but I indeed hope you start working on other articles and cease and desist with your neverending crusade to minimize factual information.--MONGO (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your accusations and tendentious readings of my friendly comments to other users (asking them not to accuse you of POV-pushing) off my talk page. If you want to pursue administrative action against me, go ahead. I no longer want to hear your opinion about my work or "mission" at WP.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Too bad...either stop minimizing factual information to suit your POV or start really...I mean really editing our articles. Few things are worse on this website than agenda driven single purpose accounts that undermine factual information to advance their own agenda and biases.--MONGO (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I will simply repeat the above. Please don't make these accusations on my user page. Start the dispute resolution process if you think I am being disruptive. Otherwise, accept our differences and edit happily.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your timing is impeccable Thomas...I have little time over the next week. I assume you will behave yourself in the meantime. There is no process that needs to be followed regarding us...you already filed a ridiculous Rfc on me in the past so we already have tried dispute resolution...all that is left is arbcom...since they are soon to change out the guard there and add 5 new members...we can wait and then we can see if this website is here for those who have one single mission (and a questionable one at that) or have been extremely active on multiple areas, creating articles and working to demand NPOV, reliable sources and reliable information (that is key you see) and haven't been spending their time promoting fringe theories at the expense of factual ones. How do you think that will turn out? Merry Christmas...as a gift...I present the website Wikipedia...there are over 2 million other articles for you to edit.--MONGO (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI report filed [[6]].--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi MONGO, Your last comment at ANI may suggest a way forward. I was suprised that you still think, given my deeply flawed understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, that I should spread myself around a little. For some reason you are confident that I wouldn't erode the factual content of articles on other topics. Why is that? Would you have approached my recent edits to the WTC article as something other than CT-pushing if I had spent the last two months editing articles on, say, American poetry?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems implausible that at this point you can convince me that you do have some other purpose here, but I guess anything is possible. It was a suggestion you could have followed a year ago, when the issue was first brought to your attention.--MONGO (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Correction please, Mr. Mongo. You do not "present" anything here. You work here.

That statement ends with a period, for a reason. It ends something. I suggest you end this nonsense and get back to work or school, Mr. Mongo. You are trying the patience of many users here. This is not your project. You are only one part of it. It is not all about you. Please take a step back and get out of your own way. Thanks; Merry Christmas. From the East... 210.203.192.45 (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have opened an arbitration case. You can respond here.--MONGO 10:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have left a short statement.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: MONGO/Basboll

Hi Bainer, Thanks for considering the issue. Just a quick question before I present some info. Where do you want the discussion to proceed? On the talk page of the RFARB page? Or should I add another comment under previous one? Or under your comment?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To expand your statement the best way is just to add it below your existing one, possibly under a subsection (as you have already done with that first expansion). For general discussion about the request itself (rather than about the dispute that is the subject of the request) then the RFAR talk page would be the best location.

Since I last posted FT2 and Sam Blacketer have added their opinions; I substantially agree with what they are saying, that is, there doesn't seem, at least on the face of the matter, to be anything immediately warranting arbitration, and it doesn't look like there have been any recent attempts at dispute resolution, which we like to see even if it has failed since it helps to identify exactly what the issues are. --bainer (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Done. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Robertson's "reflections"

In an interview with Robertson he stated that quote and was asked about the other engineers not knowing of the study. NIST said they could not examine the study because Robertson told them he lost it. I'll see if I can find the interview. I may have posted the link before in talk as this was discussed last year when I tried to have Skillings white paper given more weight than Robertsons study but as i have a crappy dialup I can't check back too far without my comp timing out. Wayne (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

See [7] Jehochman ^Talk 02:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban

For reasons described by Jehochman pertaining to this recent edit of yours, I am invoking the arbitration committee's decision here. I am banning you from the September 11 attack article and talk page, and the articles and talk pages of all related articles. Raul654 (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can really sanctions be *SO* incredibly arbitrary?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm dissapointed that a good faith edit made after discussion in talk can result in a ban without any warning or reasonable explanation. The edit was not even pro 911 truth and as large edits in another 911 article that arguably were a violation of the arbcom and that were made by an opponent of conspiracy theories were totally ignored it makes it seem an attack directed against a particular editor. I have not edited the article for 4 months but please inform me of the appeal so I can take part. Wayne (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [8] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My answers can be read here.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Of Interest

A reliable source talking about molten steel and other reasons for the collapse.

Another reliable source discussing WTC steel and melting. This was originally in the WP article but was deleted without me noticing. Why it was deleted is beyond me as it is relevant, was paid for by NIST, was published in a peer reviewed magazine and was in the FEMA study. Maybe it was deleted because it can also give some support for CD? Wayne (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My sense is that the "molten steel" phenomenon was emphasized in the early days by everyone because it dramatized how very, very hot the fires must have been. (The pile smoldering for weeks, rivers of molten steel, etc.) Much of it may have been exageration for effect. After all, if steel was melting, then it's not hard to imagine the towers collapsing. But the CDH emerged quite early (Oct 2001 is the first solid statement). This--along with more information in general--probably inspired experts to be a bit more careful about how they described the fires. (Eagar is a good example.) The molten steel was now no longer useful in explaining the collapses to a lay audience (in fact, it caused confusion since the fires could not have been the direct cause of the molten metal). But I think the official position is that it is "molten material" of some kind that is unrelated to the collapses. CDHers recorded one "confrontation" with a NIST engineer who simply denied any knowledge of the molten metal. Robertson did something similar in his radio debate with Jones. The metalurgical evidence from WTC7 has simply been forgotten. The only good reason for that would be that the working collapse hypothesis is highly plausible and has no need for extreme temperatures. It will no longer be a "deep mystery", but an unsolved curiosity.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My problem with it is that it could have some link with the collapse not connected to CD that could have implications for future building designs but is ignored because it gives credence to alternative theories including CD. Another ignored event I noticed is the recent Senate Appropriations Committee vote on the wording for the 911 memorial. The vote failed because some senators were opposed on the grounds that "There are many of us (Senators) that believe there's been a cover-up" and don't want the wording to support the official theory according to interview with Senator Johnson (R). Wayne (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My view ... which, I think you are right to say I am being penalized for, though I'm not always sure what people think I believe ... My view is that there are limits to our knowledge about the collapses. It is easy to understand (even without a conspiracy) why the mainstream media would downplay our ignorance about why and how the WTC collapsed. Part of the current dispute about "fringe views" has to do with whether an encyclopedia article should reproduce the mainstream journalistic consensus about what we know about the WTC, or should proceed directly from the scientific literature. There is reason to think that, lacking any faith in the ability of editors to understand the expert literature, WP is going to base content decisions on this very broad and popular "mainstream". My own view is that an encyclopedia could easily provide more knowledge and a better sense of the limits of our knowledge on a particular issue than mainstream journalism. That is, it could be a useful counterpoint to what is available on TV. It could, that is, really make the internet not suck. What's happening now is that a handful influential of editors are getting WP to suck (exactly) as much as the rest of the internet.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PS That's obviously IMHO. The support for MONGO, the Tango AC case, and my topic ban is essentially an expression of this difference of interpretation of the purpose of Wikipedia. I like to think that my interpretation is a sort of "fundamentalist" faith in the founding idea of WP; but I am coming to accept that Defenders of the Wiki stand for the only workable realization of the idea right now (given the actual membership of the community). It just happens to turn Wikipedia into a website that I don't want to contribute. The good news, I supppose, is that it is also very explicitly a website that doesn't want my contributions. So I think the split is ultimately amiable.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The interview I mentioned above. Wayne (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about Johnson, but she seems like a typical part of the "libertarian" constituency for 9/11 Truth. I'm working on a number of different papers about the connection between the controlled demolition hypothesis, the broader "inside job" theory, and the (interesting) variety of political projects that constitute their popular base. In this case, her main argument is her opposition to government interference in a privately funded and privately organized monument. Like Ron Paul, she opposes some of the 9/11 CT rhetoric, grants that the government is probably covering something up, and insists on keeping the public sphere as free of state control as possible. I don't think she is saying that those who opposed the bill "don't want the wording to support the official theory". They simply don't want to government to decide what private citizens put on a monument on their own initiative.

Her passing remark about cell phones exhibits the same tendency, you will note. She's probably against a law against talking on the phone while driving. Scratch her, and you'll probably find that she's against seat belts at some level. These positions mark her in mainstream political discourse as a "kook". Part of the fringiness of CD stems from exactly this kind of kookiness.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was woried about the extent of her views as well but if other senators also question 911 then it is significant. Found this RS for a claim of possible neocon involvement. It's possible he has bias but reliable sources are hard to get so at least it's something. Wayne (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think her political views are perfectly reasonable (though I don't share them). Ron Paul, for example, believes that the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the CIA, and even the FAA should be abolished. There should be no income tax, and the state should print, not borrow, the money it needs. (I may not be getting that exactly right). Those are straighforwardly "kooky" notions to most people, but after looking into them (mainly in attempt to understand what Ezra Pound, one of my favourite poets, was "raving" about) it seems to me that they have a point. In a democracy, you have a right to argue for different ways of organizing insitutions, and there is nothing wrong with being suspicious of very dominant institutions (the monetary system being the most dominant of them all). I think we have to listen to what libertarians have to say, rather than dismiss. Sometimes that does happen. By mostly they are relegated (like anarchists ... whom we should also listen to) to the "fringe".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A difference that makes a difference

My ban does clarify something: it appears now to be against policy to edit consistently on the wrong side of this difference. A difference, it would seem, that makes a difference.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I found the manoeuvre to ban you based on that edit unsupportable, and said so in one of the ANI threads about it, although IP comments don't tend to hold much weight in any case. Your diffs above don't even show that the version you edited had a lead sentence which was unsuitably strident in tone (as in The controlled demolition hypothesis is a 9/11 conspiracy theory PERIOD!) which has now been softened. What can I say except you have my sympathies. 86.44.28.52 (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)has never been involved in editing articles related to 9/11, fwiw

Hi, can I join the club?

Are there any discounts for members? :) Here go I. Best regards. salVNaut (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal rejection

Could I ask you how do you know that your appeal was rejected? (Actually I don't see any reply from the arbcom on your appeal page).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Clarification archives always get archived to the talk page of the pertinent arb case's main page. In this case, here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Request_for_appeal:_Topic_ban_of_Thomas_Basboll. I'll add a link about Jpgordon's statement. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

June Archive

Another amazing but true story on wikipedia . . . if the best and most rational editors can't be driven out, they are "banned" out. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As were you, Bov. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

July Archive

No useful advice, sorry

Sorry I didn't get round to replying to your e-mail. I don't think I have any useful advice. Possibly if you think the Wikipedia pages in question are biased or incorrect, you could try and get a reputable external organisation to review them and make an assessment. As for your ban, my concern was to ensure that there was at least some response from the admin who served the ban, and a response from the arbitration committee, rather then just silence. If they did reject your appeal, I'm not sure where you go from there. I don't think this is very useful advice, but I hope it helps. There may also be some arbitrators willing to explain their views by e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockefeller

You did some good work on Nicholas Rockefeller a while ago before it got deleted at AfD. An impossible article was just re-added, containing only the libelous part, & I speedy deleted it, But it might be possible to do an adequate article and ask for deletion review. DGG (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Procedure

Hi Thomas. As you know I have discussed your possible return to editing with Jehochman at your request. I noted your recent message to him with interest. It might be worth remembering that we are a fairly informal community and not really at all legalistic. We therefore probably wouldn't overturn your ban, however unjust that may seem to you. What I would propose would be a mentoring arrangement whereby you have someone approachable you can turn to in the first instance if things get difficult again. It woould of necessity be a kind of "second chance", and I know you would prefer that you were exonerated. I would suggest that you instead regard your ban as being time-expired. It would help if you acknowledged the very real frustration that you caused other good editors by your editing behavior back in April, and undertook to work more collegially with others on your putative return. Could that work for you? If so I would be happy to recommend your ban be rescinded. Finally, I thought this might be of interest. Best wishes, --John (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Adjacent (archiving from MONGO's talk)

Hi Mongo, in April of last year I changed "adjacent" to "nearby" in the WTC7 article. The reason I gave was "plain language" since "nearby" is the only sense in which WTC7 was "adjacent" to the North Tower. But I just checked Merriam-Webster again and discovered that there is actually no sense in which WTC7 was adjacent: it "may or may not imply contact but always implies the absence of anything of the same kind in between." I generally take adjacent to mean "right next to", and I think most readers do too. WTC6 was adjacent to WTC1 and (arguably) to WTC7—it was in between them. And that's why WTC7 can't be adjacent to WTC1. Also, I think Aude and Wayne and Peter can work together constructively. Why not let them?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your banned from editing 9/11 related articles...which means you shouldn't be cheerleading those you want to edit it, especially those that share your POV on the issue like Wayne does. Peter has done but minor edits to most of the 9/11 related articles but Aude has brought several to FA level and I have brought 8 articles myself to FA and another I greatly improved to keep it at FA level...my ability to research is invaluable to this matter and I have personal knowledge of the issues. I already explained on the collapse talk page why the buildings by NYC standards were adjacent and the only reason you don't like that word is because it implies that no debris could have struck WTC 7 when the north tower collapsed...when the fact is that the entire southern facade of WTC 7 was damaged and major fires erupted from this event. I am not sure we can trust Wayne to edit the article at all since he has openly stated that two of the most reliable sources are "BS" (bullshit I assume) in the case of the Popular Mechanics article and that results were obtained by "cheating" as is the case of the National Institute of Technology findings. If he feels that these highly regarded sources are unreliable, then he must be a conspiracy theorist like yourself, in which case there is no room for him to help me bring the article to FA level...not if indeed we want it to be considered a reliable encyclopia article. WTC 6 was a low lying structure that in no way played an obstacle preventing debris from the north tower from damaging WTC 7...however, I can change the word adjacent to a better wording.--MONGO 14:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. You're welcome. I'll decide how I help out around here, thank you very much. But you're of course welcome to report me to AE if you think I'm strying beyond the limits of my ban. Wayne seems to be able to distinguish a reliable source from one he agrees with; he does not say that NIST is "unreliable"; he says he doesn't accept their findings. He knows was RS means and sticks to it. As I said to him, however, you're likely to have the community on your side. It'd be better to let WP:AE decide who gets to work on the articles (as happened in my case). I'm not really interested in talking about my views, but the reason I don't contribute to this website is that I was treated very badly from the beginning. You're still proud of that. And WP will be what it then will be.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Well, you've removed the word adjacent, so at least we agree on the wording. You don't have to trust Wayne. You should just be grateful that he wants to spend his time fixing simple errors like that in the article so that people who know both what "adjacent" means and where the buildings were don't immediately stop reading it for fear that there are all kinds of other mistakes. One question a reader may want an answer to is whether NIST analyzed the progressive collapse. Until recently the article said that NIST did so, and "in detail". NIST, of course, did no such thing. The fact that Wayne has his own particular interest in keeping the article free of this kind of error does not change the facts. I've also offered a few more thoughts here.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever...Wikipedia is NOT a number of things that you may wish it was. Namely, not a soapbox nor a publisher of original thought.--MONGO 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"I can change the word adjacent to a better wording". Amusing. Wayne took it out because it was wrong. You put it back. Now, after someone else has looked it up in a dictionary for you, you have taken it out again. That's "better wording", I guess. We might also (and more honestly) say that Wayne was right and you were wrong. In any case, by emphasizing the proximity of the two buildings, the damage to the south side, and the "major" fires, you are sticking to a line of debunking that is now moot. (And just as the article is no place for conspiracy theorizing it is no place for armchair debunking.) NIST discovered that the building collapsed because of the critical failure of an internal column due to local heating and expansion. One fire and no structural damage would have done the trick. (In fact, as they point out, one well-placed--though unrealistically loud--explosion would have done it.) Except for the fact that the collapse of the North Tower was the likely cause of the fires, the two collapses were not related to each other, and it therefore does not really matter how close the two buildings were to each other. That is why NIST's investigations have led to a serious rethinking of building code. If the collapse of the North Tower caused the collapse of 7 structurally then there wouldn't really be a mystery, and no investigation would be necessary (just as no one has worried very much about partial collapses in building six, which was hit from above). As a member of NIST's advisory board pointed out, the collapse of building seven shows that our designs (in re fire) do not work.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTE. I didn't realize that you had actually introduced "adjacent" back in October. [9]. That's interesting.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTE2. And Raul654 (who banned me) introduced it in the WTC7 article back in April.[10] I fixed it ca. half an hour later.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, life's bitch. "Except for the fact that the collapse of the North Tower was the likely cause of the fires, the two collapses were not related to each other, and it therefore does not really matter how close the two buildings were to each other."...get a clue...the original WTC 7 would still be standing had the North Tower not collapsed...so they are completely related...if, as you said, the closeness doesn't really matter...then why are you so distraught over the word "adjacent". Gee...could it be because adding that word makes the CD explanation of the WTC 7 collapse less likely? I remember when Raul banned you...it was like long overdue and the funny thing is that I had nothing to do with it. What is so facinating is that you still, even after all this time, still can't understand WHY you were banned. You better believe I am going to debunk the CT jargon in that article...once and for all.--MONGO 04:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Basboll...since you can't edit 9/11 related articles...you are now no longer allowed to come here and yap about them either...this is a personal request...so see ya. Let me know if you have any critical analysis of my glacier, or mountain or animal or park related work...since you aren't banned from those areas. Gee....golly...maybe if you cared about using Wikipedia to espouse information that is accurate rather than misusing it as a propaganda platform for your CT stuff, you might really help us in some fashion.--MONGO 05:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."[11] (using a "BS" source to debunk the CT jargon that the collapse of WTC 7 and the North Tower were "unrelated").--MONGO 05:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But my dear, dear, Mongo, that's my point. (I'm asuming that this is my last welcome comment.) You are holding to a line of debunking that was relevant in 2005 but is now moot. NIST has published its report on the collapse of WTC7 last year: "In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events." [12] Some of us are actually trying to learn how and why the buildings collapsed, and what NIST is saying. You are trying to defeat conspiracy theories. Here at WP your project is winning. That's cool. Congratulations. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No kidding...but that doesn't negate the fact that indeed, contrary to what you stated above that the two collapses were unrelated structurally, indeed a 10 story gash a fourth of the way into the building did happen and that, in combination with fire resulted in the collapse. Above you said that (again) "Except for the fact that the collapse of the North Tower was the likely cause of the fires, the two collapses were not related to each other"...they most certainly were related. And that concludes our (between YOU and me) discussion about 9/11 (forever) on my talkpage.--MONGO 06:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to self (while archiving): they ARE of course structurally unrelated. That's what NIST discovered. The criticality of column 79 allowed fire (not structural damage) to cause the collapse. The collapse of the North Tower, of course, caused the fire, but just as structural damage didn't cause the Deutsche bank building to collapse, so too did it not cause WTC7 to collapse. NIST identified "fire as the primary cause for the building’s failure".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice to you

You are topic baned from 9/11 related articles, so cheerleading those that share your POV on related subjects is something that arbcom probably wouldn't support. Referring to me as a "single purpose account" on 9/11 related articles as you did here is a poor consideration. I just recently brought a completely unrelated article to FA level and still participate in a wide array of articles that have nothing to do with 9/11. You were topic banned from 9/11 related articles because you repeatedly tried to minimize the known facts of 9/11 and tried to emphasize alternative explanations for the events of that day...there is no room for fantasy on such pages...we know what the facts are, we have the facts available through reliable sources, and we cite the facts. We don't let our biases or conceptualizations or our "take" on the events become a part of our contributions. It is sad that you fail to admit that the only purpose Wikipedia has apparently provided for you is the opportunity to try and control the presentation of known evidence and twist it to fit into your belief patterns on 9/11 related issues...there are millions of articles you can work on, no one has banned you from those areas, so if either of us must be a SPA, it is you. Due to the more limited amount of time I have to dedicate to this project, I made a decision to prioritize 9/11 articles..but in no way does that mean I am not still involved in other completely unrelated areas. I still encourage you to work on the project as surely your interests can't be limited to 9/11.--MONGO 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My interest in Wikipedia has really been reduced to a sort of detached curiosity. When I began, I thought it afforded a unique opportunity to sort through the WTC controversy and learn something about both the collapses and the beliefs surrounding them. In a way, it did. But none of what I experienced gave me any reason to integrate WP into my thinking about other topics I know something about. I accepted WP's invititation to participate, and it didn't work out. What you now call "cheerleading" was in fact the last step in a series of cautious inquiries intended to get an error removed from an article (a false claim about what NIST investigated). It's been fixed now, though it happened through a process that was much more combative than it needed to be. It wasn't until I pointed the error out to Wayne that any edit was made to the article. So that's a good example of why you need some diversity of opinion. Even the presence of opinion you abhore. This time, it seems I've managed to get a single misleading word removed, but not without being called a few names in the process. It's all part of the Wikipedia experience! Like I say, take it to AE if you think I'm out of line.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, 14:12, 21 April 2009. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Controlled demolition draft

I think this article could do with a rewrite. Currently it mostly consists of arguments put forward to advance controlled demolition, with mainstream responses tacked on. By contrast articles on fringe theories that have made it to GA or FA status aren't written this way, and it arguably violates WP:UNDUE. However since you are topic banned from this area I doubt you are the person to attempt it. I'll wait for ArbCom's opinion. Hut 8.5 21:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The current version. I think your draft is a little better in this respect. Hut 8.5 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

your update

Hi - I don't quite understand your update on the A/E request page. Regards, — Cs32en (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you need help

Let me know if you need any help with removing this. You are welcome to email me. You may remember me as travb, who has always been against these restrictions. Ikip (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

congratulations, I am sure that you will demonstrate this is a wise decision. Ikip (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban suspended

Per this discussion your topic ban is suspended, initially for one month (until 2010-01-08). If there are no problems, I imagine the ban can be lifted at the end of that period. Please post a new request at WP:AE at that time. As always, if you intend to edit controversial subjects, be especially mindful of our content and conduct policies. henrik•talk 12:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Just noticed that you decided to contribute to the encyclopedia again, or at least to give it a try. Welcome back!  Cs32en  16:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

SPAs

I have edited the essay on SPAs adding a common misuses section which lists misuses specified in the 2009 discussions that did not seem to be disagreed with (except the user page one was not brought up, but thats probably because it is so obvious). Anyways I want to make sure the essay stays neutral so I am asking members who made comments on the talk page to review the changes and make suggestions on the talk page. There is also a discussion of potential other misuses that could be added to the list but are slightly more controversial, and hence I did not add them immediately, but rather am looking for consensus first.MATThematical (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

RE: [13]

I know you have a million restriction on your edits, but there is an editor who is being shanked in the same way you were shanked, so at the least you could maybe email him, giving him a little moral support.

Keep up the good fight, I almost completely disagree with what you say, but I think you should have the right to say it. Okip 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

AE appeal

Hello, you may want to more properly structure your appeal. There is a template now for AE appeals.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thomas, please remove your post at WP:AE#Request lifting of topic-ban since it's not in the proper form. Follow the advice the of The Devil's Advocate to use the template. Then we will be happy to review your appeal. Also, the idea that your ban should be lifted because one point of view is not sufficiently represented will not be very persuasive. You should emphasize your willingness to find reliable sources and to follow consensus. You should also explain in your own words why you were banned originally. Then you could say why things are different now. I confess that Raul654's original ban rationale is not totally obvious to me. He did not give a complete explanation, though a more thorough study of your edits might justify it. You would be helping us out if you will provide links to where your previous behavior on 9/11 was discussed. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Evidence#Evidence presented by User:MONGO appears relevant, though it's just one person's opinion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I decided to just take the liberty of reformatting it myself. Tom you should inform Raul of your appeal.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"On August 20, 2012, the last mentions of conspiracy theories were finally removed from the article about the collapse of the World Trade Center." You're quite wrong. As per Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_56#RfC:_Conspiracy_theories_link (an RfC that I was proud to start), there is a link to the appropriate article from the appropriate section. Please don't Meatball:GoodBye. --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about different articles. You're talking about the 9/11 article, I'm talking about the collapse of the World Trade Center. The one small positive contribution that my appeal to ArbCom resulted in was to have a "see also" link put into the collapse article [14]. But it remains true that Wikipedia does not want to be place where one can go to be actually informed about the content and status of the alternative theories about 9/11. (Many readers of the collapse article are seeking information to help them decide whether one or another conspiracy theory is right, or just partly right, about some particular fact. They now meet an article that pretends those theories, and a great many facts that the theories cite, sometimes entirely correctly, don't exist. So their questions remain unanswered and their quest continues, often needlessly.) It's an editorial line that has been determined by consensus. So long as it stands, I've got nothing to contribute. And I'm not allowed to contribute, anyway.--Thomas B (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WTC

Thanks for the reorganization of the Collapse of the World Trade Center. It reads more smoothly now. I am aware of your history with this topic, and remind you that there are formalized arbitration remedies that are still active on 9/11-related topics, largely arising from the issues that arose between you and MONGO way back when. The subject still requires care, although nowadays the main action we've seen in that topic has been from proponents of Dr. Judy Wood (the "Dr." is always present) who thinks it was all done with holograms and ray guns ... Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you like the direction I'm taking. But, yes, I'll be careful. I was having a look through that history when I realized my topic-ban had been quietly lifted in (I guess) May 2014. I've always regretted not being able to continue the work, especially since nobody else was working on the article either. So I'll see how far I get. If there's any big controversy, I'll probably just withdraw before it wastes too much of anyone's time.--Thomas B (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Richler

Generally for a source from 1991 you'd be unlikely to be able to locate it via a simple Google search, because that predates the time when news articles could be expected to show up in web-published versions. But I just downloaded the PDF versions of that article and another one that also supports the same statement from ProQuest, so I can send them to you if you need to see them. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd need an e-mail address to send it to, because the "email this user" feature on Wikipedia doesn't include an "attach files" option. Pop me an e-mail from the email link on my end and I'll attach them as a reply. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Thomas Basboll. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Collapse of the World Trade Center, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Lies in your edsums

Stop spreading obvious falsehoods in your edsums. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You either don't understand them or are willfully misrepresenting them here.--Thomas B (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean there. Anyway, are you going to self revert your edit warring? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I have said nothing untrue. Until you take the dispute to talk, I'll continue to boldly assert my suggestion in the article space.--Thomas B (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It was a question requiring a simple yes/no answer. I'll assume, quite reasonably I feel, that your answer is no. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Thomas B/Archive,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Thomas B/Archive,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Thomas B/Archive,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for your explanation.

I will stay off the main article talk page for now, but I still don't understand a couple of things:

The Wikipedia policy on neutrality says:

'All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.' It also says that Wikipedia should not act as an advocate for a single point of view.

I have cited peer reviewed scientific journals which falls well within the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources.

You may be familiar with the fact that there are now over three thousand engineers, including high rise architects and structural engineers, who dispute the view presented by Wikipedia, and the number grows each year.

I think it is accurate to say that the subject is in dispute, and there is not yet consensus from the relevant engineering professions, in which case Wikipedia should make the reader aware of 'all the significant views which have been published by reliable sources'. The Wikipedia policy does not say wait until there is consensus. Let the reader know and let them make up there own minds - that is after all the purpose of an open encylopedia, i.e. - it should be free from censorship, including from its own editors.

If you say any source which disagrees with Wikipedia is, by definition, not reliable, then you are stuck in the same circular logic as with the use of the use of 'conspiracy theory', intended to imply anyone who disagrees is nuts, regardless of their credentials.

I am not suggesting a radical change, just a single mention of the alternative.

Interested in your thoughts.

Dr Realidad (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dr Realidad, The short answer is that the sources you have proposed do not present a "significant view" on the collapses. Note that the neutrality policy explicitly mentions conspiracy theories as views that do not need to be added to "balance" an article. That's really the answer at the level of policy. While it's true that a few published articles suggesting demolition can be found, you must agree that the idea is not being taken seriously by the academic or professional engineering community.

Obviously, we could debate "significant" and "seriously", but that's just where the trouble begins. I've worked on this article since 2006 and was even banned from it for many years for suggesting (what I considered at the time) fair play for conspiracy theorists. It has never been possible to have a constructive debate about how to characterize the view that the buildings were or even may have been destroyed by some sort of demolition. It always degenerates into a clash between "cranks" and "shills". So we eventually decided simply to leave it on the side. And the article (now understood as a representation only of the "official" view) has, in my opinion, significantly improved, as has my relationship with the other editors. We are not interested in rehashing a conflict we know we will not resolve.

Do notice how deep the disagreement runs. The received view is that, although they at first surprised engineers, the collapses were ultimately found to be "inevitable" according to established physics and engineering theories. The demolition view begins with the idea that the collapses were "physically impossible" without some additional source of energy. Those differences are simply irreconcilable. And that explains why it's impossible to settle the question of how to include demolition. Excluding it completely is the only workable solution.

As a philosopher of science, I find the whole thing quite interesting to think about. But as a Wikipedian, I don't see any other way. It would take what Kuhn called a "paradigm shift" in the engineering community before it could be included. A Wikipedia article is not a place to bring such a shift about.--Thomas B (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Thank you. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Stonewalling

Hi Thomas Basboll. I understand you still have concerns about the proposed changes to Tim Hunt, but it's evident that consensus is against you. In reverting the consensus version, you're effectively stonewalling or fillibustering. You're well within your rights to bring up your issues at another noticeboard—though you may want to think through the potential forum-shopping implications—but until consensus changes, you shouldn't be reverting to your preferred version. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the safest version, from a BLP perspective. My "prefered version" is what has been there for years. A few more weeks of a less than fully informative article shouldn't matter. Whereas a few weeks of slander presented as fact can do a lot of harm. I just want to be sure the people at WP:BLPN share your view before I back off. Thomas B (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

And I reject the idea that I'm forum shopping. When this started I pointed out that the main problem here isn't NPOV (since the online shaming article provides a perfectly good NPOV account of what happened, as no one, I think, disputes). The real issue is BLP. If Loki had taken it to BLPN, I think this would have gone differently. As I expect it will when we get there. Thomas B (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)