User talk:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard

This userpage was nominated for deletion on 31 October 2006. The result of the discussion was snowball keep.

This page was nominated for deletion on 21 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Page Move?

I realize it's somewhat moot as it's a userpage, but you seem to be leaning towards this just becoming User:GabrielF/ConspiracyCruft...--Rosicrucian 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and now it is. Good show.--Rosicrucian 21:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is becoming a bit of a lightning rod

While I do think the accusations of this being a "conservative hit squad" are more than a little ridiculous, perhaps it would be best to move/retire this page and give the moonbats some time to focus on something else.--Rosicrucian 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's GabrielF's user space, so it's his call. But we have an uninvolved admin on-record as saying its okay (see User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me#Opinion sought). And the sad reality is that they will never focus on anything else. Removing this page will just give them the belief that they achieved a "victory", and then they'd go after us everywhere else. --Aaron 19:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps it's just a few loud voices. It does vaguely amuse me to have participated in a "conservative hit squad" given my actual political leanings. It's just weird to see this page bandied about as "proof" that the Freepers are out to ruin Wikipedia.--Rosicrucian 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welome to the VRWC. Your get-out-of-the-camps-free card will arrive shortly by FedEx. After the successful completion of a six month probationary period, you'll get the keys to the weather machine and Wellstone Ray, and will be allowed reasonable use of the black helicopter fleet for transportation. - Crockspot 20:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what a Freeper is. I'm not worried about the focus. Basically, if you don't agree with "them", they will cuss and complain and say that you are not following the rules. If you notice the Afds, you will see that each of us takes the time to try to apply Wikipedia policies in the nominations. It's not about the politics, it's about the unencyclopedic nature of the articles nominated, particularly WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Notice that we're NOT nominating articles like Steven E. Jones -- despite the nutty subject matter, that article is fairly well resourced by reference to mainstream reliable sources, and mostly neutral. The rest of these articles could be the same, but aren't because the CT advocates refuse to follow our policies. Anyway, thank you for your neutral presence in these venues. Morton devonshire 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, a Freeper is a member of Free Republic, arguably the most popular American online forum for conservatives. In Moonbattica, a Freeper is "anyone online who's not one of us." Free Republic was around for years before any of the big lefty forums or blogs even launched, so it's always been Big Enemy #1 to all of them; that's why they call anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders a "Freeper", even though 95% of the people so labeled by them have never heard of it and don't know what they're talking about. --Aaron 20:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that they're using the term "Freepers" gives me all the reason I need to discount their opinions, as the only people that incorrectly use that word as shorthand for "any conservative with a computer" are those that hang out on the hardcore left-wing sites (DU, Kos, etc.). And I too laugh at how we're getting characterized, as my own political beliefs are pretty much center right (more center than right) with some small-l libertarianism thrown in. To paraphrase the South Park guys, I'm not a gigantic fan of the Republicans (at least not lately, even though I am one), but I can't stand the Democrats. They've lost their minds over the last 20 years (but particularly the last six). In any case, at the end of the day I'm concerned about the quality of Wikipedia and the logic of edits to it. --Aaron 20:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining what a "freeper" is; learn something new every day. I completely agree that anyone tossing labels like that around is not to be taken seriously. Could you enlighten me about one more thing — what's this term "moonbat" you (and others) used above mean? Derex 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of at least one definition. Morton devonshire 04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QED. (Scroll down to "See also" at the bottom.) --Aaron 23:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AfDs on this topic have slowed down considerably and it seems reasonable to assume that there will only be a couple of them at a time from now on rather than the flood that prompted me to create the page in the first place. If users feel that this page has outlived its usefulness than I'll shut it down. Nobody's complained to me about it recently or initiated any formal attempt to shut this page down so I'm not taking the complainers all that seriously. If I shut the page down it'll be because after about 55 AfDs including 44 deletes there aren't that many 9/11 conspiracy pages left to nominate. FWIW feel free to point out to anyone who accuses this page of being a "conservative hit squad" that I'm a democrat. GabrielF 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a complaint to you. I don't know that anyone has called it a "conservative hit squad". I have however noticed that several recent listings (not by you personally I think) have nothing to do with 9/11, but plenty to do with politics. Parallel to your disclaimer, FWIW I'm not a democrat or a leftist of any stripe. Derex 23:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it's also monitored by persons who would oppose deletions. To wit, Derex and NBGPWS as well as others see as everything that everyone else sees. This is simply fair notice that an AfD is going on in an area of particular interest. All person are welcome to view and comment on these AfD's. The prupose of the list is obviously to remove overrepresented conspiracy cruft from Wikipedia but it is fair notice of what articles are considered conspiracy cruft.--Tbeatty 04:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better myself. GabrielF 04:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in spite of attempts to poison the well...--Rosicrucian 04:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what would have been swell? If you boys had noted on all these AFD's (what about 50 now?) that you found them through this page. Just a little note by your comment. _That_ would have been transparent. Sure, I'm monitoring this 50 deletes later, because I stumbled across it. Why do you think I make a point of pointing this page out every AFD I see it on now? So that _everyone_ is aware of it. If you had any desire for transparency, you would have put this in AFD space, Can't Sleep pointed out the relevant projects. Or, you would have publicly noted on the various AFD's that you came from here. So, NO you don't get to play the "aw shucks, everyone knows about this" card. It's becoming a "lightening rod" now because people are becoming aware of it now. I don't see it as a bit different than vote stacking. Sure, that's also transparent because anyone can see contribution lists. Indeed, many people now know to monitor Morton's contributions for soliciations during AFD's, but that's only because it's become so well known that he does it. If you're going to do things like this be _very_ public about them, and maybe people won't view it as sneaking around. Now, I've got a life to attend to, play whatever games you will. All dewatched. I'm starting to grow very sympathetic to the wikitruth crowd; what a waste. Derex 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like some cheese with that? Morton devonshire 04:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a thought. I've seen similar here, but we're not a wikiproject, and I hesitate to toss such templates about.--Rosicrucian 03:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added The Clinton Chronicles

Ahoy mates!

I added a new Afd that meets ALL the requirements of the goals here and also follows past precedent by this noble group of editors! I hope we can join together to fight this scourge!

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clinton_Chronicles

NBGPWS 09:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this listing, due to this users past vandalism of this noticeboard, if anyone feels I was wrong, please initiate a straw poll, thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 12:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back in, then apparently you deleted it again, causing Tbeatty to think I never added it. Please leave it as it STANDS, showing that I added it early this morning. NBGPWS 18:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO EDITORS

Please check the history on the noticeboardt page, *I* added the Clinton Chronicles in, and NuclearUmpf removed it, causing Tbeatty to possibly think that I did NOT add it to the page. To leave Tbeatty's comments is dishonest, as it indicates that I did not add it. Please restore the page to my last version.NBGPWS 18:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you come off as such a ~~smartass moonbat~~ rassafrassa frickenfrack, people might be more recptive to your input. BTW, I voted "merge" on your listing. - Crockspot 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility please. Thanks NBGPWS 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment striken, but point made. - Crockspot 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Got to love passive agressive behavior --Nuclear Zer0 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- NPA Please, Nuclear. NBGPWS 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please restore the page. (you should Nuclear, as YOU deleted it causing beatty to think I never listed it) I don't want to get a 3rr. Crocks, I salute you putting principles before partinsanship, as I believe your AfD vote does. NBGPWS 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think NBGPWS is correct, here. He followed the rules — this time — and deserves to have his own time stamp. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, you're a scholar and a gentleman! (unike some others who may or may not have posted here!) NBGPWS 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing y'all a bone!

Franklin Coverup Scandal

Whad'ya think?

NBGPWS 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move, Part 2

OK, now that that train wreck of an MfD is over, I'd like to get some views on this.

In that mess, Rosicrucian and myself had this little exchange:

Do any of you voting keep have an issue with it being moved into wikispace? It seems that would cover all the bases as similar pages already exist. *Sparkhead 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd require a more thorough explaination on what would be required of it if it were to migrate to wikispace. While the deletion sorting page seems like a likely candidate, its format also seems radically different. Perhaps you could explain further your proposal?--Rosicrucian 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I'd change the formatting much. The way the current DS pages are structured are not a required format, and it seems most of those AfD's don't see the sheer volume of comments the AfD's listed on this page do. Note the "template" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Template which isn't far off from the current structure of this page. I think it's a good fit. *Sparkhead 20:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem like a pretty workable format.--Rosicrucian 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few others commented it seemed like a good idea, and I don't recall any explicit resistance to it. If you check the template linked above, I believe the current format would need little changing. I don't want to put an official "requested move" for a user page, but this seems to have evolved past that and is practically a WikiProject. It should be made "officially" so. *Sparkhead 23:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd support this if others wanted to get on board. Hell, I did support this on that discussion, and changed my vote to reflect it.--Rosicrucian 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mfd

considering that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion (second nomination) was deleted, i have a hard time to see who this does not violated the very same issues. I want to mfd it, but i seem unable to do it, since there has been a previos mfd. How do i creat a new one? --Striver 16:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to MfD this page but since the last MfD was closed less than two weeks ago as a snowball keep I don't think you'll get very far. GabrielF 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, but that does not answer my question. --Striver 23:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case could not be made for the vote-stacking allegation. In the case of your MfD, apparently many editors felt it was. I think your case was weakened by there already being an Islam deletion sorting page.--Rosicrucian 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what other people say. Again, how do i start a second mfd round? --Striver 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the timing of it, I would think that a second mfd two weeks after the first would likely be speedy kept. But, as GabrielF said you're more than welcome to try a new nomination. It is identical to doing a second AfD nomination, just using the MfD templates.--Rosicrucian 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, it did not work. That is why i am asking. --Striver 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have another suggestion: don't take your frustration out on us. The two articles are not related. Go hassle someone else.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any other list of afd's i can "hassle"? --Striver 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you realize this is skirting pretty close to WP:POINT.--Rosicrucian 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that i need to do this, but since people have in fact argued i meant it, i state it clearly for the record: The above was an rhetorical question, obvious to anyone who knows about my history with this subject. I did not end up here on accident. --Striver - talk 02:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strive-man. I think if you would've kept it on your userpage space, it would've been left alone. Trying to promote it to official Wikiproject space is what got you zapped.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the talk page of the main guild, but when the talk page became to large, the issues were splited of into sub-pages. One was about genreal comments on articles, another about users, and another about afd's. Deleting that pages is indirectly saying that projects may not announce afd's, or that projects may not split into sub-pages, or that they may not do so if the topic is afd's or... whatever, that really makes me angry. --Striver 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting category

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 3#Category:Christian apologists was just closed with a cat rename to "Christian apologetics". I hadn't been aware of it until the bots came through and switched the cat on an article I was watching, but this category seems inherently POV. I couldn't find a similar cat relating to, say, Muslims or Islam, and the cat implies that there is something about Christianity that needs to be apologized for. If I had seen the CfD in time, I would have voted delete and rang the bell. There was nearly no participation in the previous CfD. Perhaps this one should go right back up on the block? I'm not a big time Christian, but I find this cat to be biased and POV. What say you? - Crockspot 17:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian apologetics seems to be a notable and ancient term for a branch of Christian philosophy. It dates from 65 AD. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I guess those classical philosophy courses I took some 25+ years ago were a waste of money. I'll look into who the category is applied to in case it is being misused, but apparently, I was being a knee-jerk Bushbot again. (toothless grin). Crockspot 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Cant play anymore too tired. Think I will just back to editing, don't worry I won't point the finger at anyone. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Paul Thompson has not been merged into The Terror Timeline. Though Xolx closed the Thompson Afd as a merge and he did do a redirect, Tyrenius altered that by recreating the article on Thompson...just thought that this should be noted.--MONGO 14:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think the merge should be the other way around. Make "Terror Timeline" redirect to "Paul Thompson". --Aude (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thompson

How is Paul Thompson conspiracy based. Please post here with WP:RS sources stating your view. Thank you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider forming your own pro-conspiracy theorists noticeboard. Morton devonshire 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt sound like its addressing the question. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not a 9/11 conspiracy based article? (Assuming that is, that there really is such a person. No WP:RS have been presented. If there isn't, it's a different kind of conspiracy-based article.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Maybe you should start a thread on WP:RS, I am sure you won't because then it would be apparent to you that Esquire meets WP:RS and so does the Village Voice. The great part is that RS sources has nothing to do with conspiracies, so is anyone going to actually address the question? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His "notability" is based on 9/11 conspiracy theories. (It does seem unlikely that both Esquire and Village Voice would make up the same interviewee, so I withdraw the question of his existence. Whether the person they interviewed is the same one who wrote the book is another question, but that's not for us to comment on unless a WP:RS questions it.) It's appropriate for the orginal AfD to be noticed here, and, although the DRv itself may be the improper venue, as no one seems to want it deleted any more, it's appropriate for the DRv to be noticed here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia we use these section headers, when you are not discussing the topic you post in the appropriate header or start a new one if one is not there. Please keep this header on topic and move your comments to a new section. I asked what makes him a conspiracy theory and you havent given a reason and instead started discussing DRV. Please stay on topic. Thank you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't a conspiracy theory. Any assertions I made to that affect are in error. His notability derives from conspiracy theories and his publications on them, so it's still appropriate for discussion here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name some or a source that supports your arguement? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if this noticeboard does not meet your standards, you are free to start your own, with your own measuring stick. This is not a Wikiproject. Morton devonshire 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to be rude Morton, enough of those off topic comments and you could get cited for WP:CIVIL by some editors. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my intention. You misunderstand my point: This is GabrielF’s userspace, not a Wikiproject -- GabrielF gets to decide the purpose of the space – not me, you, or anybody else. Morton devonshire 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearZer0, I think you need to have a cup of tea and get away from this stuff for a while. It seems your comments within your conversations are becoming more critical of others. You are constantly reminding others to assume good faith. That is good. You know, we are all human here. Sometimes it doesn’t take much for things to get aggravated, and you know this already. So let us work together here. And, I honestly don’t think Morton was being rude to you here. Peace - JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you noticed how rowdy some of the people who frequent here are getting. PS I love tea. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone answer this question? Seems not. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your answer: Re-re-direct Paul Thompson (researcher) -- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 29. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 specific or conspirqacy theories in general?

For the purposes of the subject matter to be included, "conspiracy-related AfDs" could include conspiracy articles where some "researcher" has written a book or created a video about the Kennedy assassination, about the unfortunate series of fatalities surrounding the Clintons, about the origin and spread of AIDS, about black UN helicopters, about the Trilateral Commission, and a dozen other tinfoil hat matters. Is the intent to still pretty much stick with the events of 9/11/2001 or to include AfDs regarding these other issues which appear to lack notability or reliable sources? If it is 9/11 specific, why doesn't the title reflect that? Edison 14:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its suppose to be general conspiracy theories, having read much of Paul Thompsons book its really not proposing anything, neither does he in his interviews, still waiting for someone to say why it has anything to do with conspiracy theories at all. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment

This user page violates the following:

Full details:[1] Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A quote from Jimbo is NOT policy. I don't think he's including campaigning to improve the quality of the wiki under things that can't be campaigned for. Consider all of the essays about inclusionism and deletionism and a million other things on user pages. Should they be deleted as campaigning too?
WP:SPAM does not apply here. Canvassing, as defined by the page you cite is "...is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages" (emphasis mine). Offering an opinion on a userpage that anyone is free to watch is NOT canvassing.
This isn't even a policy, its a wikiproject.
This also doesn't apply. Again, you're missing the very first sentence: "If you are posting on talk pages..." (emphasis mine)

Travb: You're taking wikilawyering to an extreme. You had two MfDs to make your case and the community rejected it both times. Perhaps you might consider finding a better use for your time. GabrielF 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask the same thing (re-hashing the past 2 MfD’s). As I mentioned earlier, there are some users that have issues with their own userpages that are needing more attention than anything else. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting clear violations of wikipolicy is not wikilawyering. I have noticed in the past when wikiusers have no policy that supports their POV, they usually cry "wikilawyering". When I showed a clear case why this userpage should not exist, the same lame cries went out in the last MfD.

The first AfD was prematurly closed after 2 days, as snowball keep. Wikipedia:Speedy_keep clearly did not support this close.

In both AfDs the people who contibute to this attack page were the ones who voted to keep the page. Support for a page which clearly violates wikipolicy by a small group of like minded wikipedians does not suddenly validate the violation of wikipolicy.

I await comments from: User:Morton devonshire, User:Rosicrucian, User:Tbeatty, User:Brimba, User:Crockspot, User:Arthur Rubin, User:Strothra, User:Sloane, and User:Aaron condeming this RfC too. They are also contributors to this page, and many voted to "keep" in the last two poorly concieved MfDs.

Nuclear stated himself: "The MfD really had no chance due to Striver. It matter almost as much the person nominating as the arguements made. The initial arguements being the most important. Many people do not bother reading a whole XfD, so the goal is to make the introduction cover the points and counter points that will be made by the opposing side."

I was aghast when Striver put this page up for deletion.

Myself and others offered a comprimise several times, to make this an official policy page, to stop the clear abuses, which has been ignored.

As shown by the two entries, abuses of this page continue even after the AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the very cogent arguments of GabrielF. You cited policy and guidelines, he addressed how the policies and guidelines do not apply. Do you have a reply? The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you should talk about what someone cannot have on their userpage(s). For example, you have this photo on your user page with this caption: A crowd welcoming the US liberation of a Vietnamese village (as it is per my time stamp here for any future readers of this thread). Keep in mind that this, and the other photos you display with the anti-country captions you display there are highly offensive and inflammatory. Cheers. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm User:.V., and this is in response to your Request for Comment. I think that, overwhelmingly, your citations of policy do not apply here. It has already been explained why. .V. 06:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments remain unchanged from the second AfD, and the consensus of that AfD was Keep. Do not reference WP:CCC to justify continuing this fight. WP:CCC explicitly states: "This doesn't mean that we don't have precedent or that we should ignore previous decisions about related matters; for instance, it is strongly frowned upon to keep nominating an article to WP:AFD until it reaches the outcome you prefer. If you think a consensual decision is outdated, you should ask around a bit, for example at the Village Pump, through a Request for Comment, or on an article talk page, to see if people agree with you. You cannot declare a new consensus all by yourself." (Emphasis added). It has been exactly eight, count them, eight days since the second AfD. It is a new year and all that, but consensus has not changed in the last eight days, the consensus of that discussion is not outdated. If you doubt the legitimacy of the outcome of the AfD, there is a seperate procedure for doing so. Do not merely declare the result invalid, especially when it is purely speculative. AlexeiSeptimus 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must also note that User:Travb has filed this RfC under Politics, but all of the issues he raises are user violations and the RfC is on user page space. Persumably, user violations should be directed to specific individuals and not to the ambiguous "users of the ConspiracyNoticeboard." As he has no conflict with any individual user of the ConspiracyNoticeboard but with the Noticeboard itself, this RfC is out of order. As such, I think this RfC could be deleted. AlexeiSeptimus 20:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Them words sound like lawyerin words to me. Seriously, its a request for the communities input at worst people will share your opinion and Travb will get a sense of what the community feels, deleting the RfC cause you are assuming bad faith is highly out of order. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying User:Travb doesn't have Wikipedia's best interests in mind, I am saying that this question has been tentatively decided and there is no reason why this page should be fighting for its life again so soon. The RFC was entered to discuss the claims at the top of this page and at this page's RFC listing entry that it is in direct violation of policy, which is exactly what the second MFD was about. What I am saying is that we should be highly skeptical of an RFC eight days after a user page's second MFD by a user whom has made comments claiming that this user page is an attack page on AFDs listed on said user page for several weeks, using identical arguments each time. My argument is basically that this RFC is the MFD all over again, and I think I have a compelling reason for thinking that this is so. The move-to-wikispace compromise is incumbent upon the deletion of this user page. There is no reason why we couldn't create a Wikiproject for reviewing Conspiracy AFDs if this page continued to exist. They would not be competing for the attention of wiki readers and editors and their being redundant is a non-issue, one would be a sanctioned Wikiproject and the other would be a list on some guy's userpage. Yet the creation of such a project is being packaged with the dissolution of this page. Creating a space for the open, non-hostile discussion of ConspiracyTheory articles for Wikipedia's benefit is not the issue; deleting this user page for Wikipedia's benefit is. There is a mechanism for that, it's called MFD. It has been used, twice. AlexeiSeptimus 02:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only people realized how easy it was to do this. The issues raised will never hold water since this page is in user space. It operates like a project, but doesnt take its space. That means it can cover things a project would, yet not have any responcibilities of it. For instance the page as a noticeboard would be for Gabriel to put things he notices, yet he is not the primary person adding items, so that makes it more of a group project, yet ... not a wikiproject.

So we have a board where a few users frequent, and post notices, ones that would normally not be allowed to be posted on other users talk pages since they violate canvasing. However since the posts arent being made on each page, just a central page they all see, its permitted. The items added give advice to everyone reading how to vote, not just by direction but also offer policy explanations. I have a list of recent ones:

Bias Notices:

Paul Thompson - Terms - "conspiracy crufter" & "Truther "researcher"" - [2]
The CIA and September 11 (book) - Terms - "walled garden of conspiracy theory books" [3]
The New Pearl Harbor - Terms - "walled garden of conspiracy theory books" & "yet another non-notable WP:BK" [4]
Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America - Terms - "hot-bed of original research and conspiracy theories, with most sources failing WP:RS, and overall the article violating WP:NPOV" [5]
Sofia Åkerberg - Terms - "non-notable Swedish academic" [6]
Moshe Aryeh Friedman - Terms - "token Jews" & "91 google hits" [7]
The Evolution of Intelligence - Terms - "non-notable academic book" [8]

So until some rules are made regarding this page, we are going to continue to operate and collaborate, I mean isnt, working together to achieve a goal, what Wikipedia is all about? Our goal is to remove the items we find to be conspiracy cruft. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's your goal, but my goal is to use this page to avert any censorship of what could be called "conspiracy theories." I find that some get overzealous in the deletion of such articles. This page is an excellent resource for me, as I would never be able to keep track of all these conspiracy AfDs. .V. 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find the repeated tenuous claims of 'Walled Gardens' more than a bit amusing. Any book that is available from multiple commercial sources is not by definition, part of a 'Walled Garden'. A book by Lyndon LaRouche that is sold only by LaRouchians is an example of a 'Walled Garden'. Some minor 9/11 books and many of the videos offered only on CD's, or sites like YouTube are part of 'Walled Gardens'. The majority of significant '9/11 Truth' books are not. The vast majority of the recent 9/11 related book AfD's nominated by The Cabal were definately not. 'Walled Garden' is an impressive sounding term to throw around though, so I assume that's why members of the User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard use it. In Veritas Veritas - Fairness And Accuracy For Steven E. Jones 06:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Junglecat, this RfC has absolutly nothing to do with my collage. Lets please stay on topic, which is this userpage. For a full explanation of this collage, please read User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#Blush. If you would like to comment about the collage on my userpage, I welcome these comments, but please notice the horrors of communism, which I also condem in the collage. "Perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy." Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have still not addressed GabrielF's very cogent argument above. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morton. I really hesitate to spend inordinate amounts of time debating this more, but here it goes:

"A quote from Jimbo is NOT policy." Well, sort of. Jimbo in some circles is considered a Benevolent dictator and often does make policy. The most recent example: User:Travb/Fair_use#Wales_Shuts_Down_Straw_Poll.2C_Calls_Fair_Use_Photo_Proposal_.22Meaningless.22 His ideas and views do carry a lot of weight, and actually sometimes do make policy, that is why I quote him here.

Re: WP:SPAM, Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette There is precedence about this, like Userproject:Conservatives. This userpage is a new and novel way to game the system, which to my knowledge has not been fully addressed.

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting These are guidelines of the project.

User:AlexeiSeptimus: The only person quoting WP:CCC, is yourself. And your own quote states: "This doesn't mean that we don't have precedent or that we should ignore previous decisions about related matters; for instance, it is strongly frowned upon to keep nominating an article to WP:AFD until it reaches the outcome you prefer. If you think a consensual decision is outdated, you should ask around a bit, for example at the Village Pump, through a Request for Comment, or on an article talk page, to see if people agree with you. You cannot declare a new consensus all by yourself." --that is exactly what I am doing here, isn't it User:AlexeiSeptimus?

User:AlexeiSeptimus: "I must also note that User:Travb has filed this RfC under Politics, but all of the issues he raises are user violations and the RfC is on user page space."

The underlying issues are political. This is an AfD page for users who share a particular POV.

User:AlexeiSeptimus:"Persumably, user violations should be directed to specific individuals and not to the ambiguous "users of the ConspiracyNoticeboard." As he has no conflict with any individual user of the ConspiracyNoticeboard but with the Noticeboard itself, this RfC is out of order."

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I have read these two sentences twice. Are you trying to dismiss this RfC on a technicality?

Again, I suggest a comprimise, as per User:GRBerry:

"...in the one instance I recollect where a similar [user]page was talked about, we decided that a similar page was better placed as a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting" [9]

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ascribe motives to the people who frequent this board that just don't exist. The people who visit here, including F.A.A.F.A., are a diverse group, with many motivations. Mine is that Wikipedia is wrongly used as a soapbox to advocate on behalf of conspiracy theories. I think it's fine to discuss conspiracy theories on Wikipedia, but they need to be well-cited by reference to reliable sources, as the Steven E. Jones article is. The problem as I see it, which you are never willing to acknowledge, is that most of these articles are hopelessly advocational pieces, propped-up by citation to blogs and conspiracy-theory promotional sites and authors out there trying to make a buck off of the people who believe in these things. James Fetzer is a perfect example -- he has edited here many times, and even mentions Wikipedia on his ST911 site. You continuously try to shoe-horn ideological perspectives onto the people who visit here. Please stop doing that. That people who visit here are not the monolithic group you think they are, they just want the encyclopedia to be neutral and verified according to Wikipedia standards. That's whats stated in GabrielF's standards at the top of the page. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong but one of the reasons a diverse group exists here is to counter the deletion of the page you work so hard to remove. FAAFA first appeared here because of this pages participants flooding into AfD's. I think we will soon see if a base group does share an "ideological perspective" or not. If the issue is really neutral and RS, then you would not mind expanding the project to all articles that are not meeting WP:RS or WP:NPOV? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.A.F.A. has been coming here for a long time, and so have Striver, Derex and others. As to the purpose of the noticeboard, look at GabrielF's Intro. It's his page -- not mine, not yours. You have your own user-space noticeboard. This one's GabrielF's. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Please don't misinterpet my presence here. It is analgous to that of a uniformed cop filming the crowd at an antiwar protest. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, Have a cup of tea if yuo are stressed, just do not be rude to your fellow editors. Yes FAAFA has been coming here a long time, if you do nto recall both Striver and NBGPWS came here because the "frequent editors" here flooded AfD's related to articles. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morton, I have read the anger on your various cruft userpages, this for example: User:Morton_devonshire/conspiracy_theory#A_few_thoughtful_comments_from_Admin_Aude_about_Real_Life_.22Truther.22_Tactics is a great example.

In politics, one of the best way to discredit a person's views is to say: "authors out there trying to make a buck off of the people who believe in these things" It is a common way to smear an opponent on all sides, the Swiftboating people were accused of it, and Richard A. Clarke, a harsh critic of Bush, has been accused of it too.

If I were to write a book about my political views, I would be accused of the same thing, as Chomsky, Blum, and Horwitz have been accused of the same thing.

But if you take one second and examine this common argument, it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. What is wrong with a person making money on something they believe in deeply? We should not condemn these people, we should envy them.

I don't think it is much of a coincedence that those who are "mak[ing] a buck" of these theories also happen to have opposite POV then you do.

It is really easy to see this when we take your view to its logical conclusion: If your vision of wikipedia was to come about, what would be on wikipedia about 9/11?: the official view of 9/11 and nothing else. This "official view", just happens to be, by "coincedence", the view you advocate.

I see nothing wrong with "advocational pieces" as long as these sources are well referenced and verifiable. I think we both can agree that there is a strong minority which believes in these bullshit views. Instead of trying to suppress and censor them, why not spend the time researching them and showing why they are completly bullshit?

Look forward to your comments on: My collage

Nuclear, why do you have a user-space noticeboard now? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to put the discussions some users participate in there, so others will be aware of on going situations. Such as some users arguing WP:RS, then others can see that and where its heading, and supply sources etc. Its for "things I notice" --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the CT'ers want to write books exploiting CT'ers, that's fine, but Wikipedia should not be used for their promotional purposes, as that violates our policies. As to neutrality, yes, I do think, and have said repeatedly, that CT articles like Steven E. Jones are just fine, as they are neutral and cite to reputable sources. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morton wrote: "I think it's fine to discuss conspiracy theories on Wikipedia, but they need to be well-cited by reference to reliable sources, as the Steven E. Jones article is. "

September 2006:

"Go ahead and nom the article for deletion, I will support. Morton devonshire 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)"

If Morton had his way, this "well referenced" article would no longer exist today.

I was a little skeptical Morton when you supported the existence of a conspiracy theorist on wikipedia, and my skeptism was obviously well founded.

Instead of deleting Steven E. Jones (the easy way) Morton and others had to take the harder route, and actually research this article and make it encyclopedic. This is all that I am advocating too. I have consistently fought for the inclusion of well referenced material, no matter what the POV, which has often alienated potentional "allies".

And to save you some time typing, WP:RS, WP:V are often manipulated and not very well defined. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS and WP:Verify are the foundations of our encyclopedia. If you don't want to adhere to these policies, then you should expect to be challenged by other editors. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 19:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds believable except for the fact that most articles are nominated on the basis of notability and not RS or V. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morton and Nuclear, have a great Old Christmas. Travb (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: WP:RS is not a "foundation" of our encyclodia ... it is not even a "policy". It is a "guideline". Part of the reason it's not policy is that what constitutes a RS is often a judgement call. Though it beggars belief, some tend to decide a source is unreliable mostly because they don't like the content. At the least, I've seen lots of recent questionable source deletions under RS without any discussion on talk. Why just today, I noticed an article that stated, with in-text attribution, that the Union of Concerned Scientists had said so and so. Exactly what NPOV is all about ... we simply report what the notable say. Someone, well known to you Morton, trotted along and deleted the reference supporting that attribution under color of RS. The idea being, I suppose, that the UCS position may be wrong (not reliable) ... but that's not our job to figure out. All we are tasked with under policy is notability and verifiability ... that's it. Otherwise, some fool could run around deleting everything some group he doesn't care for has said on the grounds that he thinks they are wrong (unreliable). Derex 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First separation

Pointless and silly RfC. This is a useful page for listing AfDs for articles that promote outlandish ideas that often should be removed as unencyclopedic. Listed here does not lead automatically to deletion, but it does provide a useful degree of review. Eusebeus 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Please don't misinterpet my presence here. It is analgous to that of a uniformed cop filming the crowd at an antiwar protest. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- replace "uniformed" with "uninformed". None of your (FAAFA's) comments show that you've read the page. You're perfectly welcome to report honestly in the XfD's noticed here that they are noticed here, but the RfC needs to be a user RfC to make any sense, rather than a content RfC. It's inappropriate there, although, as an interested party, I'm not going to excise it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: (CIVIL + NPA, please) I read this page (and the main board) every time its edited and shows up on my watch list. IMHO the fact that no one except NU (not even board owner GabeF) bothered to reply to this serious and important question LINKY regarding the scope and purpose of this board proves that members of 'The Cabal' know what the purpose is, and if you didn't get the 'playbook' and 'secret decoder ring' with your 'membership package', you're SOL. - Fairness And Accuracy For Truthers (thinking of starting my own Anti-Cabal Cabal) 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous incarnation introduced a (non-9/11) conspiracy theory related AfD to a previous incarnation of this article, and it eventually stayed. It also introduced a sex-related AfD, which did not stay listed. I think your question is answered by the history of the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me why Paul Thompson is related to conspiracy theories. And please provide a WP:RS to backup what you claim. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 01:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His book is related to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and his notability primarily derives from the book. I told you this a number of times. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this RFC is going to continue as an article dispute, we need to follow guidelines and create a "brief, neutral statement of the issue" and list of position statements for third parties. The current list of alleged violations does not meet this description. (See: 1, 2) AlexeiSeptimus 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has done this, and there haven't been any contributions to the RfC in the last two days, I think we should de-list it unless someone objects and takes the initiative to make this RfC follow protocol. AlexeiSeptimus 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from RfC listing. AlexeiSeptimus 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man track controversy commentary

Copying "nomination" from main page. Please add all new discussion here.

Man Track Controversy Nutty and Non-Notable Creationist Conspiracy Theory arguing that dinosaurs walked around with humans 6-10,000 years ago. I hope that all the 'young earth creation conspiracy theory' and 'flood geology conspiracy theory' AfD's and numerous other non-notable conspiracy theories based on pseudoscience and used to rake in millions of dollars for their proponents will be welcomed here. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the "young earth" and "flood geology" articles are conspiracy theories. Some are just bad science. But I think this one qualifies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of this board's POV, any article using 'bad science' whose views are closely connected to one particular foundation that sells books, videos, and/or solicits donations would be classified as such. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are, again, intentionally misinterpreting the statements on the talk page. All 9/11 theories, including the mainstream one, involve conspiracies of some sort — al Queda qualifying as a conspiracy. Bad science does not necessarily involve conspiracies. The article your previous incarnation nominated about an alleged conspiracy in the Clinton administration was clearly appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone clarify for me why this is a conspiracy theory? A conspiracy theory implies that the truth is being hidden or actively repressed by a group of individuals or a government. I see nothing like this in this article. .V. 03:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is another WP:POINT violation FAAFA GabrielF 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HUH? Please follow the link to Conspiracy theory and read the following: "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration." Man Track is clearly a conspiracy theory, and I find it worthy of inclusion to this board - an open board which 'brags' about welcoming my participation. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another quote, the very first sentence: "A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations." AlexeiSeptimus 03:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Satan uses dinosaurs as a tool of deception. There is no better animal for Satan to use against the very God that created them, than the animal that represented the very power of God himself." Dinosaurs = SATANIC Conspiracy Theory (I kid you not!) - Fairness And Accuracy For Dinosaurs 04:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that claim a) has nothing to do with the mantracks claim (aside from incidentally) and b) almost no creationists believe in the conspiracy association with dinosaurs. The notion of a general satanic conspiracy theory is simply not that common (I'd be surprised if you can find any sources online that support it that aren't personal websites like the above). JoshuaZ 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how some random angelfire website relates to this? I can't find the site linked anywhere on the article in question. I'd be ok with listing a "Satan controls the universe" type article on the noticeboard but Man track controversy isn't alleging any kind of conspiracy. If you'd like to create your own PseudoscientificBullshit AfD noticeboard (or gay sex position AfD noticeboard for that matter), be my guest. GabrielF 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This board, by definition, includes Conspiracy Theories, not just conspiracies, and that's even in the charter I quoted below. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden -- cesspool of opinion and original research. Will never conform to Wikipedia policy. Morton devonshire 12:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)" This AfD didn't have anything to do with conspiracies or CT. I guess certain people didn't like the undisputable fact that Osama is more popular in Pakistan than Bush is in the USA. That's gotta hurt! No wonder y'all nominated and deleted it! - Fairness And Accuracy For Paleoconservatives 04:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember what the text of that article was, but judging only from the title it shouldn't have been listed here. Unless there was some kind of conspiracy stuff in the article it should have been removed. Consider that a mistake on my part. GabrielF 04:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man Track meets ALL this boards requirements

What can be included:

Articles, templates or miscellaneous pages dealing with conspiracy theories and their proponents, provided that the nominator feels that these pages either

Are Non-notable
Are Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisements
Violate WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:V
Are so inherently flawed that they cannot be brought up to wikipedia standards

What cannot be included:

Nominations based purely on the editors dislike of the subject of the article and not on policy
Articles unrelated to conspiracy theories

Finally, just because an AfD is listed here doesn't mean that I [GabrielF] support it.

Man Track stays, says I - Fairness And Accuracy For FAAFA 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant phrase here is "dealing with conspiracy theories." Clearly consensus above is that this is not a conspiracy theory. GabrielF 05:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration". There's nothing in the 'charter' about consensus. The charter says the nominator may nominate articles they feel meet the requirements, even ones you may not agree with. Why are you harrassing me and my good faith nomination? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather odd that you're using the pejorative definition of "conspiracy theory" to support your claim for inclusion. The use of the word "pejorative" implies inaccuracy, because oftentimes pejoratives are applied to a wide range of things in order to demean them. Unless it can fit the actual definition of conspiracy theory (which I believe is the first line of the conspiracy theory article), it shouldn't be here. .V. 05:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You and I can cherry-pick quotes from the lengthy article all night long... "the term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with methodological flaws."... but it's not going to change the fact that a Conspiracy THEORY does not always include a conspiracy. I'll file an RfC on it. - Fairness For FAAFA 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that a conspiracy theory without a conspiracy would just be a theory. .V. 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd be wrong then. I suggest you that read the Conspiracy theory article and talk page. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, the movie? .V. 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Info: The Man Tracks Conspiracy Theory DOES involve a conspiracy, so please - no more arguing - it needs to be re-added to the list. I encourage one of you to do so. There are serious allegations that the tracks are fake. "At least one man is known to have carved several "man tracks" in Glen Rose during the 1920's and 1930's. In 1970 a Glen Rose resident, Wayland Adams, stood before a group of creationists and described the technique his uncle George Adams used to carve such tracks." Link to conspiracy claims - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate requirement for inclusion here is that GabrielF wants to include it. If he wants it, leave it alone. If he doesn't, stop adding it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then he should re-write the 'charter'. As it now reads, the nominator decides on what is appropriate, and Gabe doesn't necessarily have to agree with it. You've been very active on the Conspiracy theory article. Does a Conspiracy theory always involve a conspiracy? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The charter say that GabrielF does not necessarily support the AFDs listed or endorse a specific position on them, not that GabrielF does not necessarily support the listing of the AFD on his user page. He does, persumably, have to agree to what is on his user page since he is accountable for it. AlexeiSeptimus 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

persumably thats a weasel word. So you believe GabrielF is directly responcible for everything put on here? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that user page content which does not violate policy is his discretion. AlexeiSeptimus 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the Charter means nothing since ist really whatever Gabriel decides to put or remove? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Charter is enforced by GabrielF. This isn't some arbitrary authority, it's his user page. This isn't an article, this isn't a wikiproject, it's his user page. The charter is a courtesy for what he will allow other editors to put on his user space without asking him personally. I really don't see what we are even arguing about here. AlexeiSeptimus 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you would admit that the charter was for others only. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know since I am not participating on the noticeboard or in the AFDs it lists, but I don't get the impression that the users of this board are unified enough for there to be a Hidden Transcript buried in this user page. AlexeiSeptimus 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Tom, the charter says its not based on just anything and whatever GabrielF wants to put, it even says somethings he may not agree with, what exactly are you reading? If the charter doesnt mean anything just let me know and I will drop the arguement. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, charter is stating that GabrielF does not necessarily endorse a position on the AFDs which editors add to the list, not that GabrielF is giving up responsibility over what is included on his user-page. He said no articles not related to conspiracies, and userpage content which does not violate policy is at the discretion of the user, not the community. AlexeiSeptimus 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the board members and owner don't follow their own guidelines, like when the owner listed "/Moshe Aryeh Friedman - one of the token Jews at the recent holocaust denial conference in Iran. 91 google hits. GabrielF 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)" or the 'Perception of Osama' AfD is troubling, and shows that 'the rules' of this board might be considered arbitrary and mainly 'for others'. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't see what the link to the Moshe Aryeh Friedman AFD was doing on this board, but it's not a community decision. AlexeiSeptimus

Vandalism

Even the FAAFA's latest edit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AGabrielF%2FConspiracyNoticeboard&diff=99263849&oldid=99256288 ) is clearly vandalism (well, clear except to three editors who have all vandalized this article in the past), I can't revert it, because of 3RR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been WP:POINT, but it's not quite vandalism. .V. (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, I may be wrong. I still think that he is intentionally trying to damage the article in order to support the MfD. That would be vandalism, rather than WP:POINT. However, if you say it, it's plausible. I'll try to WP:AGF, even though he has vandalized the article before. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's not like I know. Vandalism and WP:POINT depend a lot on intention, and I hate assuming intention. Either way, I think it was disruptive to the article. What was deleted was clearly a conspiracy-related piece. Well, related to conspiracy-articles at least. .V. (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How is NU's page part of a 'conspiracy' or 'conspiracy theory' as this board uses the terms? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little bit rules-lawyerish. It has to do with conspiracy articles, and so it's included... .V. (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, yeah like AN/I does when someone posts about a 9/11 article ... --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars are not vandalism, it may be an edit war, but it isn't vandalism. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointers to sections of AN/I would be appropriate, in my opinion, as they probably would on your (Nuclear's) page if they related to this page or your page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the rules

Personally, I don't see why this page has generated hundreds of kilobytes worth of commentary. However, I've decided to change the rules a bit to defuse things. From now on, the only person who gets to post new items is me and I will post them without comment. If you want to suggest something for me to post, drop a note on my talk page. I'll post anything that falls within the scope of the page (as defined on the page and as interpreted by me) with the caveat that I don't necessarily support anything that the page links to. If you think something that I'm posting is irrelevant, tell me either here or on my talk page. I'll make sure that every AfD thats listed here has a line saying that it is listed here, but if I forget feel free to do it for me. GabrielF 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: You wrote "I will only list articles and other pages that are (a) related to conspiracy theories (as defined by the first paragraph of Conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorists and (b) nominated on a policy basis (e.g. notability, original research, etc.)" Does that mean that any article must be conspiracy theory related, even if suffers OR or NN problems - eg 'Chimpeachment', 'Bush as Hitler' (one of NBGPWS's finest works ;-) 'Public Perception of Osama' could not be nominated because they have nothing to do with CT? Thanks. - Fairness And Accuracy For Pat Buchanan 23:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I won't post those. Weren't you NBGPWS? GabrielF 18:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perfectly obvious why this page has generated so much commentary. Just another example of someone (or a group of someones) trying to assert WP:OWN again. Jinxmchue 18:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone claiming ownership of anything. Certainly not to the extent of a wikiproject or a braglist. GabrielF 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a blatant claim, but statements like telling people "The Man Tracks Conspiracy Theory DOES involve a conspiracy, so please - no more arguing" fit right into the examples in WP:OWN. Jinxmchue 18:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the guy who said that is the one who wants to delete the page... GabrielF 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. And since he's been unable to get it deleted, he's trying other ways to disrupt the page. This isn't the first time he's tried to add inappropriate material to it, iirc. Jinxmchue 19:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that people are trying to WP:OWN this page, here? It's in user space. Barring policy violations, Gabriel does get to "own" it. If he decides tomorrow that this page no longer tracks 9/11 stuff and tracks flamingo related AfDs, then it does. If he deems that only people whose username starts with G or with two syllables under standard English can edit it... his page, long as it doesn't violate policy. Am I misreading? F.F.McGurk 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I'm on G's side in this if that helps clarify anything. I just think that one person telling others flat out that their conclusion is the only correct one and that there will be no more discussion on the issue is an attempt to own the page. Jinxmchue 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this were an article it would be in breach of far more fundamental policy than WP:OWN, but user pages aren't very well regulated but I think you're right. AlexeiSeptimus 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments : Jinx, thanks for pointing out the possible WP violations of GabeFs new rules. You might very well be correct in asserting that he does not get to WP:OWN the conspiracy noticeboard page. "However, pages in user space still do belong to the community". There are some other mentions of WP regarding the community being allowed to edit almost any page on Wiki, including in user spaces - I think they are in the discussion regarding the Clinton Chronicles. I'll find them later. (found it!) "In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site" - Fairness And Accuracy For Flamingos 21:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the danger of violating WP:CIVIL, I must ask - are you being dishonest or just plain stupid? I mean, seriously. To confer the exact opposite position from what I wrote is the result of one or the other. So which is it? Jinxmchue 05:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jinxmchue: WP:NPA

Fair probably just wants the last word, let him have it. All of our personal views are well illustrated. There there really is not much more to say, is there? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, perhaps not, Trav, but I do also think that the user space WP which states "In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site" need to be addressed in regards to the 'new rules'. Months ago, back when I got a 3RR for adding the Sex AfD several times, I seem to recall an Admin saying that user spaces were editable by all editors, and my only violation was 3RR. I guess we could find out, but frankly I'm not sure I care. I'd rather edit than argue ;-) - Fairness And Accuracy For Chinese Wikipedians 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable rules

They seem ambiguous

As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community

Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are.
Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not.
In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.

In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests.

I think we should let an admin decide. Don't worry - I won't add any AfD's until I get the official OK!

applicable user space WP - Fairness And Accuracy For James Baker 06:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some difficulty believing that a user other than GabrielF can sensibly contribute to a user-subpage on the topic of "Conspiracy AFDs GabrielF finds interesting," for the same reason that I don't think that I can contribute to a policy essay on somebody's userspace with my views on the subject in good faith. AlexeiSeptimus 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The board was run so that any user who felt an AfD was CT related could add it for a long time. I'm not sure that what Gabe wants to do is allowed under WP, but in researching the history of this board, it appears that Gabe's early efforts were good faith efforts to make this a legit '"9/11 CT" board. AFAIK, the first case of anyone adding something outside that scope seems to be when 'Mordant Morton' added Dark Secrets: Inside the Bohemian Grove an AfD totally unrelated to 9/11. It went downhill from there. If Gabe and the board stick to the new rules, and they're allowable under WP, I have few concerns over the 'new and improved' "9/11 CT" board. - Fairness And Accuracy For Anti-Bohemian Grovians 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very clear to me. Its his talk page. Wiki lawyers & Conspiracist are just trying to disrupt and add confusion to what is really very simple. I'll take back my comments of wikilawyers and conspiracist.Dman727 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like some kind of conspiracy theory to me. Anyone else involved? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 03:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dman727, this dispute is rather escalated. Please don't make unconstructive comments, they place in jeopardy those few gains we have made in resolving this issue. Everyone else, don't take the bait. AlexeiSeptimus 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine and I appreciate that emotions seem to be involved. However, I DO think it is rather simple and offer that only as a constructive comment to all the sides of the issue. Dman727 07:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP = "In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit,... it should be placed on a personal web site" [end quote] - Seems very clear that you are violating NPA, CIVIL and AGF, Dman. I suggest that you stop. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Pot. Kettle. Black... JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any kettle there, and anyway - that was before I 'reformed', mostly due to the actions of concerned, proactive editors like NU, Travb and MONGO, all whom I owe a debt of thanks. Where's the alleged WP violation JC? Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA, please bear in mind that at this point we have had two third-parties, not involved in the original dispute, who have read this talk page and questioned whether your comments are in good faith. I think you are trying to help Wikipedia and I think if you make the tone of your comments more respectful and are more careful about using other people's words, these types of personal attacks from uninvolved parties can be avoided. AlexeiSeptimus 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UI)Thanks for your comments, AS. I'll wait for one or more non-involved Admins rulings on whether or not the new rules are allowable. WP is the cornerstone and foundation of Wiki, and my good faith efforts to make sure that this board is following WP are salient and vital to the very lifeblood of this noble project known as Wikipedia. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My god, just move the thing

I have brought up a move proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting#What is the precedence on userpages?, the reason being that things like this should go in the Wikipedia namespace instead of the user namespace. This user subpage has been on my watchlist for quite a while, and I've noticed that it is primarily edited by two parties that don't like getting along with each other. This very talk page demonstrates violating WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.. Therefore, within good faith I believe this user subpage can have a better life as a WikiProject subpage. Regards, Tuxide from WikiProject Retailing 07:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not respond to this message here. I would rather you respond to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting#What is the precedence on userpages? instead because this is where I initially brought up my move proposal. Regards, Tuxide from WikiProject Retailing 07:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]