The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. There are scattered indications in the debate that a Wikiproject on 9/11 could accomplish some good in verifying/sourcing articles, but overwhelmingly agreement that that this "association," as it stands, is outside NPOV policy and inflammatory. Xoloz 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors[edit]

Seems to be a sort of WikiProject attempt, with a sign-up and advocacy of articles which attempt to refute the known evidence of the events of September 11, 2001. Violation of WP:NOT.--MONGO 09:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Violation of WP:NOT? Please specify. Advocacy is not allowed by the guidelines, but NPOV is mandatory.  Xiutwel (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How did I know you or Morton devonshire would nominate this for AfD before I even got done with it? Its not an attempt, it is an actual project and I fully intend to get people onboard on it. Seeing as though this is not an encyclopedic article I don’t really see how WP:NOT even directly applies, but it I suppose it could be argued that it does. You, Morton devonshire and/or a few other editors have managed to slip an awful lot of very questionable AfDs through the system recently on the 9/11 topic. Your user pages make it very clear why you are so interested in these articles, and that’s your right to be interested and you also have a right to your viewpoint on 9/11. What you don’t have a right to do is game the deletion system until the only stuff that’s left is stuff you agree with. This project advocates nothing other than the enforcement of already established policy by patrolling these pages and aggressively reporting misuse/abuse of the deletion policy (or other polices). There can be absolutely no harm to the encyclopedia by an organized patrol of a specific group of articles that has been a target for removal by AfD for every reason except for the right ones. If you want to argue this policy and that on bars “my” project, then I will argue, WP:IAR applies because the encyclopedia is better (read: more complete, less biased) if my project is kept as opposed to being deleted. Oh, and I should note that Morton devonshire is already doing pretty much the same thing (providing a watch list so like-minded people can go around and propose for deletion or vote on the debates) with his user page. Should I nominate that for deletion? --Shortfuse 10:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A project? Yeah, a project to intimidate editors from bringing these articles up for Afd, and a personal attack on myself and MONGO. If you look at each of the Afds, you will notice that Wikipedia policy is cited, and those are the reasons the articles are nominated, not some silly notion you have made up, and which you have expressed above in bad faith. I'm going to give you a chance to apologize for your personal attacks and lack of good faith. If you don't, the next place this will be discussed is AN/I. Morton devonshire 22:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You better go ahead and complain to the admins, because I have nothing to apologize for, I'm not sorry for anything I have done here, have no reason to be sorry for anything I have done here and I will not offer an apology that I don’t mean simply to appease you. Better yet, why don’t you take me before the ArbComm for alleged incivility, that would be even more fun. Lets see if you can game the system all the way, my friend, shall we? My good faith is clear here. The fact that you cite policy in your AfDs makes them legit? I don’t think so. If that was the case, why don’t we just write a bot to decide on them. After all, if that’s your only criteria for a legit AfD, then we're all wasting alot of time here. Fortunately for the encyclopedia, the policy is a bit more unbiased and fair than you are. --Shortfuse 09:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage makes what clear? This Wikispace page you have created is simply an effort to gather conspiracy theory believers together so you can POV push nonsense into Wikipedia. If Morton has a watchlist...it is in his usespace, doesn't have a membership, doesn't advocate anything close to the obvious attempts at a POV push as this effort by you does. It's his userspace, not a separate POV pushers wikispace article like this is.--MONGO 10:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I had your user page confused with Morton's user page. If you take a look at Morton's page, you'll see what I mean. I am not stupid and I can see that there is a very organized attempt to remove everything but the official version from the encyclopedia. Using the AfD process for this violates the policy and constitutes abuse. Several decent articles on this topic have already been lost and I’m not about to sit by while more go because no one is watching over them. Its hard to keep an eye on them because people keep constantly removing the categories (Look at what was done to 9/11 In Plane Site just tonight, I added relevant categories and they got reverted out what, five times?) so the only other option is a group of people who decide to volunteer some of their time to watching these articles, comparing notes and ensuring that when one of them goes up for deletion, its not done in the middle of the night and all interested parties know about it. Its not a consensus if only one side is communicating and gets to vote. I'm not advocating the pushing of POV-anything into the Wikipedia. I want to make sure all notable sides of this issue are there for the people that want to read them. This is perhaps the most important topic in the history of the United States, and for once all sides should be presented without the usual BS. The rest of my argument stands unaltered. --Shortfuse 10:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you userfy this page I have nominated. Move it to your userspace and then the problem is solved. Creating a group such as this one which entends to POV push nonsense articles, watchlist editors and articles that might be deleted is simply not the way wikipedia is supposed to operate. If articles have been deleted, that is because the consensus was to do so...that's the way it is..I see no evidence that there has been even one circumstance of IAR that was implemented to delete a single conspiracy theory cruft article. If folks like yourself continue to misuse Wikipedia for promotion and propaganda of nonsense, then IAR may be the only way to deal with this situation.--MONGO 10:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not move it to my user page. If you all want to delete it, then you're actually going to have to delete it and then I am going to follow the procedure on up from there. Usually, I am open to compromise but this is one thing I am not open to compromising on. You continue to use terms to describe these articles like "nonsense", which clearly indicates a bias on your part. What exactly constitutes consensus around here is always up for debate. Admins are granted an exceptional amount of leniency to discount the opinions of certain editors in favor of the opinions they find more favorable from certain other editors. There is no policy anywhere that prohibits the creation of a group to watch articles and trouble users (what do you think Prod Patrol and to an even greater degree NC Patrol does?) and I know this because I looked very hard before I started on this. Please point me to the policy that says that Wikipedia should not work this way. The only one that comes even close is WP:AGF, which in situations like these where people are gaming the system like there is no tommrow, that becomes more of a punch line than something that should be taken seriously. I am convinced I am on the right side of the wikilaw here and I'm going to stand my ground. So lets sit back and let this thing get the votes (us continuing to go back and forth is pointless and will eventually devolve into something uncivilized) so that the admins can do what they will with this and I can react accordingly, if required. Shortfuse 11:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a decent out by suggesting this be moved to your userspace. What you are doing here is creating a battleground, not an encyclopedia. I recommend you learn about the policies of this website.--MONGO 12:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase: I gave you a decent out by suggesting this be moved to your userspace, while innocent in itself, used in this manner borders on incivility, and also appears to me to trample on assuming good faith. This is not really very becomimg behaviour if that was indeed your intention. It seems abundantly clear to me that the project's creator has an excellent grasp of the policies of Wikipedia. The project has stated objectives which are very clear and are wholly neutral, as they should be. Were they not I woudl have registered an opinion for deletion. This seeks to guarantee that lynch law does not hold sway. In case you want me to declare an interest here, I have none, except that Wikipedia is enhanced. I will not be joining the project and very much doubt I will edit the articles concerned in any way. But I supp[ort its right to exist. Fiddle Faddle 15:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't incivil to suggest he move it to his userspace. How on earth do you expect anyone to respond to this type of "project" that has designs to create a subculture intended to possibly vote stack and monitor other users it is in disagreement with? Surely, any page like this that has intentions along these kinds of lines is comletely unwiki and completely incivil.--MONGO 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battle ground and this is not a war. I see this as difference of opinion that will be resolved according to policy. It will have to be resolved this way as opposed to working towards a consensus because both sides believe they are right, believe that the other side is misguided/wrong and have dug their heels in. And I see it as a position worth standing up for. The idea that this is uncivil because I plan to monitor users that I disagree with is ludicrous. The Counter Vandalism Unit monitors vandals because they don’t agree with them. So every member of that is guilty of being uncivil? Its the same type of reasoning. I haven’t seen anyone propose any of the vandalism projects for deletion yet. Maybe I should go do that right now? Or would common sense would tell me not to do so? Shortfuse 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what...you add my name to the watched editors and I'll speedy delete this as an attack page. You start going around nominating articles for deletion to make a point and you'll end up getting blocked for violating WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT. Now I am an admin on this project and I am telling you that watchlisting editors you are in disagrrement with in a wikispace page like this one will not stand...period. You were recommended to move this to your userspace and if you did that, I frankly could care less what you have to say about me or other editors you disagree with. But that's not good enough...you wish to use wikispace to harass those that are simply in opposition to you...sorry, no good.--MONGO 17:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested nominating articles to illustrate the point. I have read the policy. No, I will not take myself down to the that level and I am not about to become guilty of abusing the delete process while I am very publicly complaining about the manner in which other people are using it. That would sort of undermine my own position, wouldn’t it? I will look at your edit history and what other AfDs you have been involved in on the 9/11 topic and if I think its appropriate to watchlist you to prevent further damage, I will do so. And that will be regardless of whether you're an admin or not. I am not harassing anyone and I am not going to keep repeating myself. And if you speedily delete the project page or take any other action against me that’s uncalled for, count on me complaining to anyone who will listen. --Shortfuse 17:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've been warned.--MONGO 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me. And I have listed you due to your conduct on your talk page (numerous people have attempted to address your bias on this issue, and you have basically told them all off) and also your involvement in numerous AfDs on the topic which I believe are motivated purely by a desire to whitewash Wikipedia of non-agreeable material. --Shortfuse 17:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 10:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - platform to legitimize and advocate conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear attempt to stack AfD votes. --Mmx1 14:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to alledge stacking of votes or sockpuppetry (through the group or otherwise) is permitted to do so on in the AfD page, together with any evidence they may have, where the admins will consider (or not) such allegations and the evidence supporting them (or lack of it) when determining consensus. Shortfuse 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I see every reason to let this go ahead. I think the title is poor, but all the delete votes so far appear politically against such a project. Rename it "The 9/11 Project" and try working together for a change. There is as much validity in the researched facts as in the conspiracy theorists. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. The whole thing, all facets of it, is a world phenomenon. Our job is to document it. I am wholly impartial here. I have no interest in 9/11 per se. It happened, it was awful. That's it. I have an interest only in enhancing this encyclopaedia. Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy based reason such a thing shouldn't exist, and their stated aim is to police/enforce NPOV. That can only be a good thing. EDIT: Lose the Users section. That's encourage on User space, but not on this. Everything else is Kosher. · XP · 15:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but rename to a better place (WikiProject 9/11?) and remove the users part. The users part is going to enflame people whether it's meant to or not, but the rest is legitimate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The user watchlist has been removed and will not be re-added (by me). I found myself in agreement with the arguments made privately to me that there was a more effective and civil manner to keep tabs on problem users without having a public list of "bad users" floating around. Such a list would act as a lightening rod for all sorts of misbehavior and since the same task can be accomplished without the list, losing the watchlist was preferable. Shortfuse 18:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I assume that as the first person you placed on the list, that you would define me as a "bad user". What you don't understand is this: I nominate articles for deletion because they violate Wikipedia policy, namely WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. The biggest problem, by far, is that these articles attempt to argue or persuade in favor of the theory, and do so by relying upon blogs for support -- that violates Wiki policy. Some conspiracy theory articles are well-written, cite to mainstream reliable sources, and are objective and neutral in their presentation -- heh, those are fine (Steven E. Jones being a fine example). Oh, and I'm not sore at you for naming me on your watchlist -- you should be aware, however, that I am not alone in my pursuits. Cheers and happy editing! Morton devonshire 02:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the item you cite as "policy" regarding blog links is not a policy. Its a guideline which means, more or less, a few people go together and thought it was a good idea. I'm very much aware you're not alone on this. There is a nice little group of you working on this one, even got some admins into the fold which is handy because they can clean up any problem users who might protest or try to do whats right. --Shortfuse 04:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- so long as you choose to ignore the policy on blogs and other disreputable sources, you can expect that these articles will continue to get nominated for Afd. Morton devonshire 05:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This project, if that is what it is, should explicitly state that it is a WikiProject, rather than an association or something else. Right now, it doesn't. Also, there is an already an existing proposed project, User:Striver/WikiProject 9/11 Truth Movement, which covers the same basic area and is better formatted which could be merged into. Lastly, even I, who regret to say that I have on occasion gotten a little hot over proposed deletions myself, think that the amount of heat being thrown around here is probably playing hob with my computer's systems. Tone down the rhetoric a little, OK? Badbilltucker 18:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Protestations of neutrality are distinctly hollow. Guy 21:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Organization designed to soapbox and game the consensus of XfD pages. Wikiprojects designed to just organize voting for a particular viewpoint are just well-constructed vote panning. Kevin_b_er 23:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Badbilltucker, Guy, Kevin Tom and nom. This seems no different than the earlier problems we have had such as the attempted Roman Catholic POV pushing project from a long time ago and similar more recent instances. JoshuaZ 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Badbilltucker, Guy, Kevin Tom, JoshuaZ and nom. The use of the vague touchy-feely term "All Sides" in the title is evidence that the proto-WikiProject is intended purely as a one-stop shop for those interested in violating WP:NPOV on the subject of 9/11. --Aaron 02:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious attempt to give undue weight to minority POV by wikilawyering over process. Choess 04:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whenever I see a project with a weasel name it's up to no good. >Radiant< 09:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - thinly veiled soapbox which has no place in the project space. -- I@n 09:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per I@n GabrielF 14:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other arguments. Crockspot 14:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oer above. If it were a WikiProject and if it were open to consideration of the hypothesis that the 9/11 Truth Movement is mistaken, then it could be kept. At best, this is a POV fork of a potential WikiProject. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ So-called "minority POVs" might not be so minority if there were more editors from Muslim countries on the English Wikipedia. Maybe this project could become part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it might be better to just go and join Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This crap is like a bad penny. Cruft, be gone. --Tbeatty 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Change to Project The fact that the original draft of the article listed editors that are known for, shall we say, aggressive deletion nominations on 9/11 articles that don't agree with the official explanation, but lacked a listing of editors that tend to submit content without the proper references or notability shows a distinct bias, and a clear diversion from the claimed direction of the association. Make it a Wikiproject (similar to User:GabrielF/911TMCruft). But given that referenced page lists all the articles being targeted by the "anti-cruft" movement, simply putting a watch on that page might be sufficient. I'm not convinced this is the correct path to stem the rash of non-policy-based AfD's. Sparkhead 01:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other statements above. The most telling part of this project was the user watchlist. In a word: No. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others above. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a need for a neutral body to act on these issues, but the listing of two editors to be watched has got this off on the wrong footing from which it can not now recover. Tyrenius 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An association with a user watch list? No thanks. Rx StrangeLove 21:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Project as a whole fails to assume good faith.--Rosicrucian 16:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No reason to assume good faith when there is huge heaping piles of evidence of bad faith. Shortfuse 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are so not helping your own case. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, prolly not. Its already clear to me which way this is going to go. Its clear that the self-appointed cruft warriors are gonna win this battle and prolly the war too. At this point, no reason to hold back my true thoughts. The few keep votes that I'll scare away wont be enough to save it. This whole situation disgusts me to no end. Of course, I expect nothing less from those with small minds who are easily influenced. --Shortfuse 19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~You also got there?~~ never mind... --Striver 22:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand your frustration, please avoid personal attacks.--Rosicrucian 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would however be a requirement for me, that good faith be assumed! So this has to change.  Xiutwel (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin(s). I am no longer adding articles or content or anything else to this project until the outcome of the XfD proposal is final, and I would encourage others not to do so either. I stopped with the two articles I did because the XfD took a turn for delete, no point in pumping momentous effort into something just to have someone delete it. I decided this quite some time ago, but I wanted to make sure that the arguments made by some here "that I only listed CT Cruft and that’s all the association intended to list or deal with" don’t go without a rebuttal. I ask the closing admin to keep in mind that this project was literally listed for deletion while I was fleshing out the structure of it and still editing the pages. In summary: its under developed and the page that is before you today does not represent the entire purpose. It never had a chance to get that far. --Shortfuse 03:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Pretty useless. NPOV already gives all sides, not the one side of the founders. --Tbeatty 04:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)I already voted Delete--Tbeatty 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

}