Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quantumentanglement

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Quantumentanglement (talk • contribs • logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

Quantumentanglement is a fairly new user who so far has exhibited deep WP:FRINGE issues by stating that there were no Arabs aboard Flight 77 (a hijacked 9/11 plane). The user seems to be acting in good faith, but is not understanding Wikipedia's core policies.

Desired outcome

Quantumentanglement stops trying to add fringe theories about 9/11, stops asking for an unattainable level of sourcing for others while giving dubious sources himself, and stops cross-posting about the issue. In other words, that Quantumentanglement would simply drop the issue of no Arabs being aboard the 9/11 plane barring the unlikely event he can come up with considerably better proof and sourcing, and prove that a sizable minority holds this point of view (per WP:UNDUE)

Description

See statement above

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

User propagandist site for own point of view. He and the site
Claiming his sources are primary, and others' sources are not (a ridiculous statement, in light of the situation)
User provides proof as a passenger list from CNN which excludes any Arabs. Of course, no mention that this was a list of victims, with the hijackers purposefully left out.
Quantum (as IP) provides another source with exactly the same problem as above.
User simply not getting the point. Keeps repeating that he'll listen if documents are provided, yet a glutton of a list is provided right above that.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

~~#, , MONGO (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)~~

Mr Which??? 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Rklawton (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Aye. It's not particularly evil, this, just a darn nuisance. I would suggest that Quantumentanglement find another topic to edit for a bit. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this comment sums up the issue. Mr.Z-man 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Response by User:Quantumentanglement

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

1. The article is provided because it has a link to the primary source, which is official and undeniable in its nature. Your or my judgment of that article is just that, a judgment.

2. Claim is inappropriate word with regards to the issue. I'm claiming nothing; I've provided the official documents which state what they state. If the official documents of US government or military are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia, then I've completely failed to understand some of our basic principles. As a matter of fact, if that is the case, I'll stop my contributions instantly.

3. I've repeatedly asked for "citation" which will put those nasties aboard the flight, I'm not here to provide one for the editors involved; I'm here to point to the irrationalities and demand the proper sourcing and referencing. That said, I'm not sure what's the point, since I didn’t insist on that reference in any way.

4. Again, that is the second article that is provided for same reason, it has a link to the primary source that needs to be verified. The main reason those two articles are provided lays in a fact that they carry the documents which contest the content of article. Editors were asked numerous times to provide the list, reference, source which will refute or dispute the primary source. None were provided. Not a single one verifiable and reputable source was provided. If there is a need, I'll state the obvious, there is no way to refute this primary source. I see this is a huge problem for some, but personal views are just that, personal views and they have nothing to do with the improvement of the articles or Wikipedia.

5. As you see above, you've provided nothing and the fact that no one provided anything is why we have this request? IMO, this request is unfounded, meaningless and made with bad faith.

Other users who endorse this summary

The edit history supports the statements in Quantumentanglement's response. Nonetheless, this is a community first and an encyclopedia project second so I would encourage Quantumentanglement to read carefully Haemo's objections and try to be mindful of them in the future because if you can not get along with Haemo, then you may as well quit. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Haemo

This is a summary written by users somewhat directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an another view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Views" section, except to endorse a view.

This dispute focuses around Quantumentanglement's views about the 9/11 attacks — specifically, his belief that there is no evidence putting the named hijackers on board the planes in Question, specifically Flight 77. In order to promote this fringe theory he has repeatedly misinterpreted our guidelines, especially verifiability, in the manner expressed here. In essence, his interpretation, and the source of this argument, boils down to the claim that our guidelines state that "any source which states that there were arabs on board without having a primary source itself is worthless".

This is simply, and unequivocally wrong. Our guidelines do not say that, in any way, shape, or form. The level of sourcing demanded by this request goes far, far beyond anything Wikipedia — indeed, academia — requires for sourcing. Because of this misinterpretation, Quantumentanglement has engaged in an extensive campaign requiring a primary source which would "refute" an autopsy report touted by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "evidence" there were no Arabs on Flight 77. Despite being spurious and speculative original research, since there are no reliable sources claiming this as evidence of the claimed interpretation, the claim is based on a faulty interpretation of our guidelines and holds no weight to begin with.

In trying to correct this misinterpretation, I, and the other editors and administrators who watch over this article, have been subjected to numerous personal attacks including claims of abuse of admin power, calling other users "government shills" who are "receiving money to obstruct editors from improving this article", and accusations of vandalism against editors reverting his POV editing. While this kind of behavior is not atypical for this subject area, and this page in particular, it is by no means acceptable behavior on the part of another editor.

This needs to stop; Quantumentanglement's editing has been classically tendentious and has wasted the time and good will of a large number of editors whom he has been abusive and incivil too. His current behavior is not helping the encyclopedia, and unless he fundamentally changes his approach to editing — and acknowledges that Wikipedia is neither a battlefield upon which to right wrongs, nor a soapbox to promote his views, he will not be here to build an encyclopedia. I urge him strongly to diversify his areas of experience, understanding our guidelines and policies, and cease trying to promote fringe theories using Wikipedia as a vessel.