User:Aude/Sandbox8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Background
From the outset, he was strongly interested in conspiracy theories touted by Alex Jones (radio), including the more fringe theories pertaining to the Oklahoma City bombing and then moved on to promoting greater inclusion of 9/11 conspiracy theories in the main September 11, 2001 attacks article.
There are dozens of articles about the 9/11 attacks (e.g. one for each of the four flights, each of the 19 hijackers, for various aspects - planning/organization, responsibility, the collapse of the WTC, aftermath, memorials, 9/11 Commission, etc.) This article, per WP:SUMMARY, needs to cover all bases and cannot dwell in great detail about any particular aspect. The article needs to provide an overview. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, 9/11 conspiracy theories in particular do not need much discussion. A short, concise summary and link to the main article suffices. There is consensus for this, but Xiutwel edits against consensus (admittedly so), inserting factoids and other conspiracy theories material.
[edit] Not a new account
When Xiutwel created his account, he was clearly not a new user (that in itself is okay, since people are allowed to start over, or maybe were editing a lot as an IP). Xiutwel also edits [1] eng. transl on the Dutch Wikipedia - nl:Gebruiker:Xiutwel, and started editing there shortly before creating an account here. As a single purpose account, and possibly not a new account, this may indicate some other purpose for his editing. His first edits (in January 2006) include edit summaries. His second edit "direct wiki link Jones" included wiki terminology that a newbie would not know. [2] His third edit was to setup his talk page. [3]
[edit] Oklahoma City bombing
Edit warring on the Oklahoma City bombing page, creating an edit war on what is otherwise a quiet, stable page. Granted that this was almost two years ago, I am willing to let this go should I see the user's behavior has changed and improved. With Xiutwel, his behavior has absolutely not changed and continues this sort of edit warring, now on the 9/11 page.
His first edits in January 2006 were reverted by Kralizec! and Aude.
In June/July, he was reverted by Aude, Nae'blis, Kralizec! and Tom harrison. Unrelated to Xiutwel, 199.60.112.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and some other IPs who participated in the edit warring.
09:10, 2 January 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (+ dispute flag back (I don' t know why Peephole deleted it)) (undo)
07:06, 2 January 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (?Trial and aftermath: Rohrabacher on conspiracy theories, CNN) (undo)
Note: Xiutwel edited sporadically from October to late December
14:04, 21 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (disputed flag (due to initial news reports dispute) - see talk) (undo)
19:15, 15 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (?The bombing: This is the best I can do at this point, after 3 months of work (see talk).) (undo)
15:17, 12 August 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (additional bomb scares) (undo)
16:22, 4 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Oklahoma City bombing? (Alleged media reports on alleged additional explosives)
06:48, 3 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Oklahoma City bombing? (?Alleged reports on alleged additional explosives: section dispute only)
06:39, 3 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Oklahoma City bombing? (?The bombing: explosives dispute, see talk)
07:51, 29 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Oklahoma City bombing? (we have still not been shown the sources would be inadequate, see talk)
04:20, 28 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Oklahoma City bombing? (revert, source seems adequate, see talk)
13:39, 27 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Oklahoma City bombing? (?The bombing: Please do not revert again, see talk, refrase if you must.)
07:05, 27 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Oklahoma City bombing? (see talk // Additional explosives were used)
04:46, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Oklahoma City bombing? (?The bombing: additional explosives -- see talk page)
[edit] 9/11 attacks
Xiutwel began editing the September 11, 2001 attacks article in July 2006, along with some related articles. Generally speaking, he tends to edit in spurts and then takes long wikibreaks where he is mostly or completely inactive. But, he comes back time and again and resumes the edit warring and other behavior.
Xiutwel has a history of edit warring on the September 11, 2001 attacks page:
[edit] July 2006
04:04, 7 July 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (?Responsibility: see bin Laden article) (undo) 07:51, 4 July 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (?Responsibility: see bin Laden article) (undo)
[edit] July 2007
July 5 - Xiutwel reverts Haemo, Golbez, Pablothegreat85, and Aude
07:41, 11 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (109,022 bytes) (inspired by an older version, stumbled upon in google cache) (undo)
06:44, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (107,698 bytes) (?9/11 Commission: it is relevant to know that the account is not completely "full and complete" as was instructed.) (undo)
05:32, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (107,698 bytes) (?9/11 Commission: , and the report does not mention WTC 7 except in a footnote) (undo)
02:49, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (107,670 bytes) (neutral tag again) (undo)
01:43, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (107,671 bytes) (undo)
01:33, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (108,418 bytes) (rv // would you please not revert all my edits in once? // would you please discuss and improve per edit? // let's cooperate...) (undo)
Group of five edits:
- (cur) (last) 01:16, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (108,418 bytes) (?The attacks: interception) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 01:08, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (108,134 bytes) (?Civilian aircraft grounding: global dimming) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 01:05, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (108,007 bytes) (?Osama bin Laden) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 01:00, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (107,828 bytes) (?Responsibility: the database) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 00:55, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (107,647 bytes) (?The attacks) (undo)
00:49, 5 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (107,645 bytes) (presumably // on that date) (undo)
July 11 - Twice reverted by Golbez
07:41, 11 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (109,022 bytes) (inspired by an older version, stumbled upon in google cache) (undo)
07:12, 11 July 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (108,984 bytes) (see talk page) (undo)
[edit] August 2007
August 16 - Xiutwel reverts Aude, MONGO, PTR, and Weregerbil, clearly violating WP:3RR. He should have been reported and blocked. */
09:36, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (114,087 bytes) (1 they are facts to you, not to me. 2 See also Talk"Per Talk" Undid revision 151605573 by MONGO (talk)) (undo)
09:21, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (114,087 bytes) (1 they are facts to you, not to me. 2 See also Talk"Per Talk" Undid revision 151605573 by MONGO (talk)) (undo)
09:11, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (114,126 bytes) (wikipedia is not about proving you are right, it is about attributing knowledge Undid revision 151557362 by Weregerbil (talk)) (undo)
09:02, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (114,087 bytes) (per talk page) (undo)
06:17, 16 August 2007 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (114,081 bytes) (?See also: The Terror Timeline dear MONGO: it's related, it's useful; to include I see basis enough. Please discuss on talk if you disagree.) (undo)
[edit] February 2008
/* February 4 */
16:51, 4 February 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (118,970 bytes) (NPOV tag) (undo)
/* February 21 - Xiutwel went on to Striver's talk page, to get him to help with the edit warring. Striver hasn't been involved in 9/11 pages for quite some time. Together, they reverted three times. Haemo reverted Striver the last time, saying "One person does not a dispute make." */
01:47, 19 February 2008 Striver (Talk | contribs | block) (119,867 bytes) (adding NPOV tag again, obvious dispute in talk page.) (undo)
19:12, 18 February 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,578 bytes) (see Talk:9/11#split: passport issue - I interpret consensus - Undid revision 192433653 by Aude) (undo)
18:43, 18 February 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,578 bytes) (?The hijackers: hijacker passport (see talk page consensus)) (undo)
10:39, 17 February 2008 Striver (Talk | contribs | block) (119,865 bytes) (There is clearly a dispute here: the longest archive i have ever seen!)
/* March 2 - March 10, page was protected due to edit warring by Xiutwel. February 29 - March 2, he reverted Weregerbil, Haemo, Aude, Haemo (again), MONGO, RxStrangeLove, Ice Cold Beer, I believe he violated WP:3RR. Also, the spirit of 3RR is that an actual violation is not needed, if there clearly is edit warring:
"The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive."
No one has been enforcing this, and as an involved admin, I cannot.
- /
10:51, 2 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,911 bytes) (restore 2 pov tags, until matter is resolved via talk page) (undo)
23:20, 1 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,025 bytes) (rm - can you explain? see talk Undid revision 195255910 by Haemo (talk)) (undo)
22:18, 1 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,025 bytes) (?Conspiracy theories: rm - per WP:SUMMARY, details like debunking such theories belong on the subpage))
21:54, 1 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,911 bytes) (?Immediate national response: POV secton tag) (undo)
21:52, 1 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,865 bytes) (?Conspiracy theories: restore middle edit / tag as POV section) (undo)
21:31, 1 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (124,205 bytes) (?Conspiracy theories: NO CONSENSUS, but sourced) (undo)
21:28, 1 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (123,556 bytes) (?Conspiracy theories: per User_talk:Weregerbil#claims, no need to label the individuals, play on the ball) (undo)
21:22, 1 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (123,557 bytes) (?Immediate national response: NO CONSENSUS, but this needs including per WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:COMMON SENSE) (undo)
07:27, 1 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,790 bytes) (?Conspiracy theories: more neutral wording; "claims", do we agree?) (undo)
06:53, 29 February 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,906 bytes) (since our articles are neutral, linking to them cannot be undue weight Undid revision 194828590 by Haemo (talk)) (undo)
06:53, 29 February 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,906 bytes) (since our articles are neutral, linking to them cannot be undue weight Undid revision 194828590 by Haemo (talk)) (undo)
/* Xiutwel is edit warring here, violating WP:3RR; As an involved editor, I couldn't block him, didn't want to report him, but did warn on the talk page. He reverted "Ice Cold Beer" and MONGO here, but Jc-S0CO, RxStrangeLove, Haemo, and Okiefromokla were also involved, made it clear there was no consensus, but despite that Xiutwel keeps reverting */
22:22, 10 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,833 bytes) (rv // ICB, it's near-mandatory to motivate your reverts, stop forgetting that please. Use the talk page, if needed.)
22:11, 10 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,833 bytes) (rv // It's also on Bush allowing the bin Ladens to fly away, it even has 911 in the title, and "you can't distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda when you talk about the war on terror.")
20:47, 10 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) m (120,875 bytes) (ICB, you were absent this week to help find consensus, and now you rv the flags uncommented? Undid revision 197248536 by Ice Cold Beer)
10:27, 10 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (120,880 bytes) (restore flags, See Talk:9/11#March 10 changes -- Undid revision 195341323 by MONGO (talk)) (undo)
08:35, 10 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (125,176 bytes) (?Immediate national response: See talk. // 9/11 testimony plus informal accounts of Bush, Cheney, Mineta)
08:13, 10 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) (121,989 bytes) (?Conspiracy theories: see Talk. // Von Bulow added, and other changes to make the text coherent) (undo)
07:47, 10 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs | block) m (120,794 bytes) (rm pp-dispute|expiry=March 10, 2008) (undo)
[edit] Starts "forest fires" on article talk pages, with high volume of posts
Xiutwel is good about using the talk page, though to such an extent (starting numerous new talk page sections) that people can't keep up, makes it confusing, wears people out, and perhaps (in his view) makes his opinion seem bigger than it is. Essentially, he is starting forest fires on these articles and people can't keep up. "forest fires" describes what happens when a lot of energy is input into the system at once. - [4]
- This was evident in the June/July 2006 OKC bombing edit warring. On the talk page, his edits were opposed by Hipocrite (for lack of RS), Nehrams2020 (RS only), Weregerbil, Aude, Tom harrison, Krazilec!, NYScholar , Nae'blis - see Talk:Oklahoma_City_bombing
[edit] User talk page messages
Xiutwel also leaves a lot of user talk page messages, inquiring about his edits and why he was reverted, starting with his sixth edit which was on Kralizec!'s talk page , regarding his edits on the Oklahoma City bombing page [5]
On his ~35th edit in February 2006, he came on my talk page about the OKC bombing article. [6] He did not edit at all from March 5 - June 2006. He came back on June 21 with another message on my talk page about the OKC bombing page. [7]
- [8] - February 2006, messages to Aude and Tom harrison regarding OKC
- [9] - June 2006, multiple messages to Aude, Tom harrison, and Krazilec!
- [10] - August 2006, messages to Aude, Tom harrison, and Krazilec!
- [11] - talk page messages to ~12 users, regarding DRV of "9-11: The Road to Tyranny"
- [12] - talk page messages to 13 users regarding "FBI poster"
[edit] User talk page messages to Ireneshusband
He not only leaves talk page messages for users who revert him and oppose his edits on article talk pages, but he also leaves very friendly messages for those sympathetic to his views.
Granted it was some time ago, he left this message for User:Ireneshusband in December 2006:
"Problems, problems...
Wikipedia editors, and even moderators, may be
- psychopaths
- government agents
- stubborn people in denial
Considering there are about 1 million editors, I am absolutely sure some of us are either agents or psychopaths (or both, hihi). However, I choose to refrain from speculating on that in individual cases, since my experience is, even in my private life, it's so easy to mis-judge other people. It's even easier to be wrong here on wikipedia, where we cannot see of hear eachother. Just the words on the screen. Therefor I stick to the wiki-rule of "assume good faith". Not because I'm convinced we all are of good faith, but because I'm convinced I won't be able to tell for certain. The only solution is stick to the rules.
Talking about rules...
In the new year I'm anxious to end my wikibreak and see whether we can reach some kind of understanding here: Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes. Could save us all a lot of time and energy.
— Xiutwel (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
911 Denial
The Nile ain't just a river in Egypt... Experience has proven that for about 50% of the population it is very hard to see or accept the obvious: that our governments seem to be steered against their own. I live in Holland, and while all politicians lament greenhouse-warming, measures to counter it are abolished yearly.
The Dutch government seems to have sanctioned U.S.-torture policies. We have become what we sought to combat. Perhaps the average Jihad terrorist is a moral being compared with the average War-on-Terrorist?
I believe the main reason for 911 denial is the fear to loose all ground. To accept that everything you believed in, is a lie, makes people very, very afraid. I think the 911 movement should do better to combat fear, than to push their evidence. The picture is already crystal-clear for all who dare to look. Wikipedia isn't needed for that, though it pains me that wikipedia equates reliable sources with official sources, since that throws away a lot of jewels of knowledge, and lets in heaps of garbage. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)" - [13]
December 2006 is when Ireneshusband previous put up a request for 9/11 conspiracy theories to be renamed, a request which was overwhelmingly rejected. December 2006 is also when User:Cplot was a problem on Wikipedia. Also see [14] [15]
[edit] Message to Jimbo
Alternative Paradigm Wikipedia
Dear Jimbo,
I would love to hear your ideas on the following:
Wikipedia is an excellent base for knowledge. That is: generally accepted knowledge. However, it fails misarably in cases where the generally accepted knowledge or paradigm happens to be false — or, might be false. Imagine wikipedia existing in the era when the Earth was still flat. Wikipedia would than ridicule or delete any articles which would describe the Earth as a sphere orbiting the Sun.
I understand that this is a choice wikipedia had to make: the dominant paradigm rules, as this is the one that has "reliable" sources etc. But I also think Humanity would be served with a wikipedia in which the underdog-paradigm can be explained. Without fear of being wrong. Simply reflecting the opinions and knowledge of large numbers of people, even when it is "only" indigenous knowledge or "common knowledge" and is NOT supported by mainstream "knowledge".
How would it be for you to have something like: alt.wikipedia.org Or, if we do not even use the wikipedia name, something else, e.g. alt.fringepedia.org or something like that.
With love, and gratitude for your projects,
- — Xiutwel (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- the Netherlands
-
- This seems more suited to being on wikia, it doesn't really fit under wikipedia at all --febtalk 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Feba,
thank you for your suggestion. It helps me to get more clear for myself what I want. Wikia is not what I am looking for. I want something which is encyclopedic, but which is also free in the sense that a certain modesty prevails, in stead of a dominant paradigm which tries to exclude or ridicule all knowlegde and all viewpoints which do not align with it. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Follow up a few days later - [16]
re: Alternative Paradigm wiki ?
Hi, I'd love to hear an answer, if you could find time to....!
- Xiutwel (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Cplot
"How about giving Cplot another try?
I am trying to find out why Cplot was banned, and I have the following impression:
- Cplot is currently evading the ban (in violation of policy)
- "(S)He" is succesful in doing so
- this is causing a lot of work for admins, and creates a lot of confusion
- I see an indefinete block without much of explanation or chance of parole
- Cplot is a very inexperienced user; it is easy to accidently violate the guidelines since there are so many that the best thing is to be bold and learn via trial and error.
I think the world could be a better and nicer place if Cplot was re-admitted *and* would behave. I can see no harm in trying this. Please respond here or on my talk page. If you should oppose, please provide me with links to a full account of evidence to support the ban, and your motivation for continuing the ban (till... when?). — Xiutwel (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)" - [17]
[edit] 911 POV disputes
9/11 attacks talk page - starts up with "Osama FBI poster"; also creates User talk:Xiutwel/Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes, which was moved to his user space from Wikipedia namespace.
[edit] Continues on policy talk pages
text goes here ...
[edit] Relevant policies and guidelines
[edit] Continues to be a single purpose editor
Currently edits nearly exclusively on 9/11 related subjects and is always attempting to include 9/11 conspiracy material. For example, in February 2008 Xiutwel had 582 edits. Of those, 572 were related to 9/11 topics or policies related to NPOV issues on 9/11 topics (mostly to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view). Of these, 183 edits were done on the Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks page.
[edit] Summary
User:Xiutwel
run at Wed Mar 19 03:23:08 2008 GMT
Category: 1
Mainspace 332
Talk: 706
Template: 1
User talk: 601
User: 132
Wikipedia talk: 85
Wikipedia: 142
avg edits per page 4.18
earliest 22:44, 6 January 2006
number of unique pages 479
total 2000
2006/1 15
2006/2 22
2006/3 1
2006/4 0
2006/5 0
2006/6 45
2006/7 48
2006/8 20
2006/9 236
2006/10 5
2006/11 2
2006/12 17
2007/1 43
2007/2 0
2007/3 3
2007/4 32
2007/5 11
2007/6 52
2007/7 189
2007/8 158
2007/9 4
2007/10 1
2007/11 18
2007/12 44
2008/1 47
2008/2 580
2008/3 407
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
62 September 11, 2001 attacks
29 9/11 conspiracy theories
26 Oklahoma City bombing
10 Mathematical coincidence
9 Zeitgeist, the Movie
8 David Icke
8 Cathy O'Brien
6 Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics
5 Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks
5 Al-Qaeda
4 PENTTBOM
4 Mark Phillips (disambiguation)
3 Alex Jones (radio)
3 Pythagorean triple
3 Newton's law of universal gravitation
Talk:
452 September 11, 2001 attacks
67 Oklahoma City bombing
67 9/11 conspiracy theories
17 September 11, 2001 attacks/FBI poster controversy
10 2004 Osama bin Laden video
5 Zeitgeist, the Movie
4 Muhammad/images
3 Cathy O'Brien
3 Alex Jones (radio)
3 October surprise conspiracy theory
3 Anti-Americanism
3 Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
2 The Granada Forum
2 7 July 2005 London bombings
2 Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories
User:
70 Xiutwel
18 Xiutwel/911 questioning paragraph draft
5 Xiutwel/September 11, 2001 attacks
5 Xiutwel/List of information for the 9/11 article
5 Xiutwel/concatenated Talk:9/11 archives/starting at 27
4 Corleonebrother/9/11 opinion polls
4 Xiutwel/stub article in progress:Zeitgeist the Movie
4 Sockrates-duo
3 Xiutwel/concatenated Talk:9/11 archives
2 Xiutwel/Copy of: Zeitgeist the Movie
2 Xiutwel/my POV
2 Xiutwel/Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes
User talk:
64 Xiutwel
45 Xiutwel/Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes
21 Aude
17 Tom harrison
16 Okiefromokla
15 Master of Puppets
13 Krimpet
12 Pablo-flores
12 Striver
12 Apostle12
10 Haemo
9 67.165.163.114
8 Peter Grey
7 Golbez/Archive Shichi
7 Rx StrangeLove
Wikipedia:
45 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories
17 Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie
10 Deletion review/Log/2006 September 25
8 Deletion review/Log/2007 June 21
6 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
5 Village pump (proposals)
5 Village pump (policy)
5 Neutral point of view
4 Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
3 Editor assistance/Requests
2 Articles for deletion/Alex Jones' websites
2 Articles for deletion/9/11 advance-knowledge debate
2 Naming conventions
2 Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
2 WikiProject Neutrality
Wikipedia talk:
40 Neutral point of view
7 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories
7 Mediation Cabal
5 Village pump
4 No original research
3 Notability
2 Neutral point of view/Homeopathy, NPOV and Minority Topics
2 Notability (films)
2 Verifiability
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 03:23:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
[edit] To be continued
More text here ....
