| Revision as of 21:41, 22 November 2006 editSeabhcan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,216 edits →This RFC has failed← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:51, 22 November 2006 edit undoNuclearUmpf (talk | contribs)3,904 edits →This RFC has failed: response, no not pure, but soundNext edit → | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
| ::::::Of course policy and quality of sources will still apply. But requiring that every edit be perfect from the instant you click 'save' is also a touch 'anti-wiki'. Perhaps having to prepare sections on a sandbox will allow some space for things to develop and take some heat out of the arguments, while ensuring that the article presented to the public is never 'impure'. ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | ::::::Of course policy and quality of sources will still apply. But requiring that every edit be perfect from the instant you click 'save' is also a touch 'anti-wiki'. Perhaps having to prepare sections on a sandbox will allow some space for things to develop and take some heat out of the arguments, while ensuring that the article presented to the public is never 'impure'. ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::"Pure", no, but sound, yes. The problem with many things in contention is simply a lack of sources. If they existed from solid sources there would be no arguement, you can attempt to attack the sources, but sound foundation will allow it to hold up to a barrage. If you want to edit a political article that there is high heat on, then you should do yourself and everyone else a favor and make sure what you are adding is verifiable and sound. Its not anti-wiki, its actually very wiki to follow WP:RS and WP:V when you add something, too many people take this too lax, which its not your job, it is an encyclopedia. You should not throw your opinion in or someone else's without saying who etc. I think too many people do not realize that someone is going to read what they wrote, or realize it too well and want to affect the person instead of just report the facts. We arent here to change hearts and minds, we are here to better this encyclopedia foundation, and much like science articles are held to a higher standard of verifying and checking, political articles often deal with people or entire groups and should attempt to strive for that as well. If not for any other reason then to save yourself the headache of tracking sources later, message on your talk page etc. Just to clarify, at no point am I actually reffering directly to you, just saying you, as I am addressing everyone will read this. You know I already hold your sourcing ability in high regard. --]<s>]</s> 22:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion of NIST and Peer Review == | == Discussion of NIST and Peer Review == | ||
Revision as of 22:51, 22 November 2006
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requests for comment/Seabhcan page. |
|
edits
I have been looking over the edits of some of the users, trying to figure out who is in the right here, it is rather troubling:
Daniel Pearl
User:Morton devonshire twice deletes referenced material on Daniel Pearl, reason: "revert nonsense". User:Morton devonshire had never edited Daniel Pearl until User:Seabhcan did. .
User:Seabhcan then starts to make fun of User:Morton devonshire name.
User:Tom harrison who also has never edited the article, then starts to edit the article too. User:Tom harrison is a frequent ally of User:Morton devonshire and shares his same POV. Too User:Tom harrison credit, he does not delete anything that User:Seabhcan created , since User:Morton devonshire had already deleted it. Tom also adds referenced material.
The argument then goes to User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Daniel_Pearl where User:Seabhcan makes fun of User:Seabhcan name. Travb (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Operation Gladio
User:Morton devonshire 04:52, 3 November 2006 edits the article, calling the section he removes complete bullocks
User:Seabhcan edits the article 03:36, 8 November 2006
User:Seabhcan 12:03, 10 November 2006 writes in edit: "rm Hoax banner. What idiot put that there? This is not a hoax"
User:Seabhcan 18:46, 10 November 2006 writes in edit: "Please learn something about European history before you edit."
User:Tbeatty 00:14, 11 November 2006 joins the editing, User:Tbeatty is a frequent ally of User:Morton devonshire and shares his same POV.
User:Seabhcan 00:26, 11 November 2006 protects the article
User:Derex 08:09, 11 November 2006 joins the editing User:Derex is is a frequent ally of User:Seabhcan and shares his same POV.
User:Intangible 14:02, 13 November 2006 writes in his edit: "this is bullocks". User:Seabhcan objects to 'bullocks' term with talk page message .
User:Morton_devonshire/Egadio page: "Complete Bullocks!"
User:Morton_devonshire/Egadio#Der_J.C3.BCden_Did_It attack section about User:Seabhcan, including a "Permalink to Lord Seabhcan's 3RR block can be found here".
Bullocks: A castrated bull; a steer. Basically this is "bull". Travb (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a fine line between incivility and humor
- 13:15, 8 October 2006 edit summary "Saint Mongo of Factoid has pronounced upon this topic, but not yet blessed us with a holy citation, let us pray this will be improved in future.
I find this edit LOL funny. Travb (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Irony
I think some of the people participating here need to realize that RfC's are for resolving disputes, calling a group of people a cabal of vandals, accusing others of having sockpuppets etc are all things I have read in the outside views that will honestly prevent anyone from taking this RfC as an actual attempt to resolve disputes, I ask some of the people who have made such comments to revise their statements if they actually are here to resolve the dispute. Also I think its quite honest of some editors such as Travb to admit they are here to push a POV. --NuclearZer0 15:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nuclear, I have consistently admitted that i am pushing my own POV, in fact, I admitted it again in the comments section on this page. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out how these various wikiusers are going to side with, including myself. I readily admit that my behavior has been bad at times, and I have apologized and changed my behavior, and I readily admit that Seab has violated WP:NPA. I am troubled by Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All's use of AfD as a weapon to push his own POV.
- Edit wars is not the way to resolve the Ganser/Operation Gladio dispute. I doubt myself that the Operation Gladio issue is true also. Unfortunatly at this point, the only thing that will solve this dispute is a Arbcom ruling. Editors with like minded POV have used a reccuring tactic and pushed Sea into a corner. Someone who feels trapped and helpless is not willing to comprimise and debate rationally. Therefore third party neutrals, who have no POV to push, will have to resolve this issue. Aren't we all adults here? The immature and spiteful behavior of some editors consistently shocks me. Ocassionally I am ashamed of my own piety behavior too.
- The sad thing is, that while the Operation Gladio debate will be resolved harshly, with harsh punishments to those who cannot edit like adults, editor abuse of AfDs and wikipolicy will continue. Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Politically motivated AfD's: the elephant in the room Travb (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ignoring your attacks on me which are highly misplaced, I once again remind you and others here that an RfC is for resolving disputes, much like the FAAFA one did. If you feel I do not want to do that, whatever, I didnt start this RfC and your personal opinion is yours, however attacking me gets you nowhere, oddly enoguh when I was commending you of all times. In closing, I remind everyone here that attacking Seabhcan isnt the goal here, please take a RfC as it is, a means of resolving disputes, hopefully this talk page will be used for that and this RfC can have a successful outcome. Thanks. --Nuclear
Zer016:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC) - I would also like to point out that I have not comments or signed a statement because in all my butting heads with Seabhcan he has always came through with facts over accusations and diatribes, sourcing a whole article to prove he was right instead of just chest beating. Again Travb, please refrain from attacking me, its quite old now. --Nuclear
Zer016:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)- Travb, thanks for the support, but I also think you are being hard on NuclearUmpf. He has certainly mended his ways since he operated under the name Zer0faults and is now a valuable and constructive editor. There are plenty of problem editors around and no need to unfairly lump Nuclear into their gang. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Zer0faults, I apologize if I missed where you commend me. I see some stark and promising changes in your behavior, which I warmly commend. You are more civil, I wish FAAFA was the same. I agree that Seabhcan behavior is out of place, especially for an admin. Reminicent of some of the old RfCs I have read about MONGO, someone just called for Seabhcan's adminship to be removed.
- I have to ask, what is the best thing for wikipedia? If Seabhcan simply promises to curb his WP:NPA would this satisfy you? If attacking Seabhcan (who happens to have the opposite POV then you do) is not your goal, then accepting Seabhcan's apolgy would show your intent, and would indeed show that your behavior has changed.
- A RfC is a disruptive form of reprimand when negotiations have failed. It "takes two to tango"--Seabhcan's unacceptable behavior did not happen in a vaccum. I also want to resolve this dispute, but my resolution is probably radically different from yours. As the old saying goes: "Every country wants peace, but they want peace on their terms."
- I messaged User_talk:Thatcher131#Beating_Nuclear_to_the_punch about this conversation.
- (edit conflict) It is nice to see that even User:Seabhcan agrees that you have changed. I am all for second chances, being one of the few editors here who has been indefinetly banned.Travb (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is nothing to satisfy me, I actually support Seabhcan, especially since how out of way he went to end a revert war that took place between us by rising above and sourcing the article. I think I understand now why you attacked me above, you felt I was against Seabhcan, however that is not the case. So hopefully others can read this and will answer the question of what will satisfy them. Again hopefully this talk page can turn into some good resolutions.
- Also I never got an apology from Seabhcan, but never felt I deserved one either. In the conflicts on that article I believe he turned out to be the better person of the 3 of us. --Nuclear
Zer016:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)- Travb, do you know that NuclearZero is not the one who started this RfC? It was Tom Harrison. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes sir, I am aware that Nuclear did not start this RfC. I was wrong to attack Nuclear here, when he has obviously changed, and I removed my comments about Nuclear. Again, I believe in second chances, having a rich boot history myself. It is so very pleasant that User:NuclearUmpf did something so completly out of character. I love when people surprise me.
- Travb, do you know that NuclearZero is not the one who started this RfC? It was Tom Harrison. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Travb, thanks for the support, but I also think you are being hard on NuclearUmpf. He has certainly mended his ways since he operated under the name Zer0faults and is now a valuable and constructive editor. There are plenty of problem editors around and no need to unfairly lump Nuclear into their gang. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ignoring your attacks on me which are highly misplaced, I once again remind you and others here that an RfC is for resolving disputes, much like the FAAFA one did. If you feel I do not want to do that, whatever, I didnt start this RfC and your personal opinion is yours, however attacking me gets you nowhere, oddly enoguh when I was commending you of all times. In closing, I remind everyone here that attacking Seabhcan isnt the goal here, please take a RfC as it is, a means of resolving disputes, hopefully this talk page will be used for that and this RfC can have a successful outcome. Thanks. --Nuclear
- I believe User:NuclearUmpf is refering to the revert war between himself and me on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America began on 16:04, 23 October 2006 when NuclearUmpf removed three sections. Travb (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, that is the revert war I was reffering to. I was going to add an addendum to the "outside view" to confirm, but this post should be adequate. Just to add I would say it started on 11:40, 13 October 2006, 10 days prior when I added the sources tags. --Nuclear
Zer017:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)- This may not be particularly relevant to this RFC, but since my name was invoked, I want to drop in a quick comment. WP:NPOV does not require that topics be neutered of all point of view, rather that all significant points of view be represented so that an outside reader should not feel like the article is taking sides. That can be accomplished with a neutral editor but it can also be accomplished by two groups of editors with strong opposing points of view, as long as they work within the system and accord each other a minimum of mutual respect. I think Nuclear and Seabhan did rather well at the state terrorism article. There are some other post-arbitration situations I am monitoring that aren't turning out as well, unfortunately. Thatcher131 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out the fundamental difference between the POV of the editor and the various notable POVs on the topic. If I were editing an article on, religion, for example, I should try to balance the different notable POVs present in literature and in the media. My personal POV (I'm a devout atheist), as a wiki-editor, should be irrelevant. Misplaced Pages articles should reflect the state of the world, not just that subset of the world that edits wikipedia. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- This may not be particularly relevant to this RFC, but since my name was invoked, I want to drop in a quick comment. WP:NPOV does not require that topics be neutered of all point of view, rather that all significant points of view be represented so that an outside reader should not feel like the article is taking sides. That can be accomplished with a neutral editor but it can also be accomplished by two groups of editors with strong opposing points of view, as long as they work within the system and accord each other a minimum of mutual respect. I think Nuclear and Seabhan did rather well at the state terrorism article. There are some other post-arbitration situations I am monitoring that aren't turning out as well, unfortunately. Thatcher131 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, that is the revert war I was reffering to. I was going to add an addendum to the "outside view" to confirm, but this post should be adequate. Just to add I would say it started on 11:40, 13 October 2006, 10 days prior when I added the sources tags. --Nuclear
- I believe User:NuclearUmpf is refering to the revert war between himself and me on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America began on 16:04, 23 October 2006 when NuclearUmpf removed three sections. Travb (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Irony (cont)
A reply of 'they do it too' is always unimpressive. Your misuse of your admin tools, if not repeated, can be dismissed as minor errors of judgement. If you do not accept that calling other users hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists is wrong, I do not think there is anything more to be gained here. If you feel some need to present a defiant appearance, fine, but if you do not change your behavior things will continue just as they have, but eventually without your contributions. Tom Harrison 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tom, I firmly agree that calling any editors "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists" is wrong, unless of course, the editors in question happen to be "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists". In this rare case, which is the case we have here, it is the obligation of every editor to speak the truth. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. Lets just take that whole Good faith thing and throw it out the window eh? Dman727 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Faith has its limits. I've been dealing with these guys for more than 6 months. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for a good five and a half months and they consistently prove me wrong. We have to face reality sometime. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tom wrote: A reply of 'they do it too' is always unimpressive.
- It is called a red herring fallacy of logic.
- I believe that all WP:NPA and policy violations should be dealt with equally. As I mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#User:Travb.
- Labels don't help anyone. I coined the use of the word "Deletionist" and then retracted and apologized later. Calling editors "Deletionist" didn't help my editing goals at all, in fact I think it hurt my editing goals. To avoid large scale edit wars and chaos, unfortunatly wikipedia is designed for political correctness to come first, and frank opinions to come second. Although I often stuggle with this policy too, and have been booted for crossing this line, I can definitely see why this policy is there. It is nice not to be called nasty names everytime I log onto wikipedia.
- For your own sake Seabhcan, I would stongly suggest toning down the rhetoric. For your own sake. There are some "elephants in the room" which wikipedians should not talk about. I am sure there are "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists" who edit wikipedia, but calling other editors this, even when it is obvious they are, only poisons the air and makes wikipedia a really unfriendly place for everyone to visit.
- User:Tom harrison, if you are really here only for alturistic motives, and not to grind any axes, I would suggest endorsing Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#User:Travb, where I condemn everyone equally, including myself and Seabhcan. If you feel you can't endorse my comments, I would appreciate your opinion why not. Please explaining why you can't endorse my comments, and I will modify the statment appropriately.
- I bristle everytime anyone uses the word "truth". Your "truth" and my truth is a collection of biases, ideologies, life experiences, and social conditioning, which is probably much different than other people's own "truth". When wikipedians begin using the word "truth" they are really expressing their own staunch, immovable ideologies. This always personally turns me off.Travb (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am here to help write an encyclopedia. Seabhcan's incivility is interfering with that. I do not condemn everyone equally. I do not agree with your ideas that there is no objective truth, that all our actions are morally equivalent, or that there is no worse sin than hypocrisy. But that is beside the point. That point is, if Seabhcan persists in his disruptive behavior, he is going to get blocked. If you think I have made personal attacks, post on WP:PAIN and let an uninvolved admin deal with it. Tom Harrison 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tom, I honestly don't see how my behaviour can be described as 'disruptive'. Insulting, maybe, but disruptive? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tom, I do not subscribe to these stark maximums:
- 1) there is no objective truth,
- 2) that all our actions are morally equivalent, or
- 3) that there is no worse sin than hypocrisy
- I may or may not support those maximums more than you, but that does not mean they apply here.
- That point is, if Seabhcan persists in his disruptive behavior, he is going to get blocked.
- I support this idea 100%, and I continue to support that idea. I have asked Seabhcan in a million different ways to stop saying stupid things that only ultimately hurts him.
- If you think I have made personal attacks, post on WP:PAIN and let an uninvolved admin deal with it.
- I have found you very civil, much more than Seabhcan is. To my knowledge you have ever made a personal attack, and your example has taught me how to behave better. Travb (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tom, I do not subscribe to these stark maximums:
- Tom, I honestly don't see how my behaviour can be described as 'disruptive'. Insulting, maybe, but disruptive? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This RFC has failed
Just let it die. Where is the exit strategy for this RFC? It serves no one's interest, and makes everyone involved appear less than objective. Abe Froman 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the Rfc demostrated the reasons it was brought forth exactly...that Seabhcan is incivil, that he has abused admin tools, that he has made broad accusations of an ethnocentrict nature about his fellow editors and that he is unwilling to alter his behavior. He has demostrated that repeatedly in his response here and elsewhere. As far as the incivility issue, one need only look at the majority of his snide edit summaries and commentary and decide which ones summarize his incivility best.--MONGO 20:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are you condemning me to an eternity of bad Karma, Mongo? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney(Hows my driving?) 20:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, asking for reform only.--MONGO 20:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can't expect me to unliterary disarm. There needs to be reform on both sides. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Between us, I know not exactly who threw the first stone, though your threat to block me while we were in an editing dispute was alarming. I know I haven't been as civil as I can, but feel that while I stopped this towards you some time ago, you have persisted, and as of late, you have only gotten worse. The people who oppose your edits or references aren't a cabal or fascists or dumb Americans.--MONGO 20:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think, for a deal to be done, we'll have to bring to the table more than just the two of us. Morty, Tbeaty, TDC etc will have to agree to decommission their disruptive editing behaviour. NuclearZerohas a good idea on
his talk pagehere - lets hammer out a code of practice for controversial topics. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 20:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)- I suggest you mention that to them, as well as to Tom Harrison who initiated this Rfc.--MONGO 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think, for a deal to be done, we'll have to bring to the table more than just the two of us. Morty, Tbeaty, TDC etc will have to agree to decommission their disruptive editing behaviour. NuclearZerohas a good idea on
- Between us, I know not exactly who threw the first stone, though your threat to block me while we were in an editing dispute was alarming. I know I haven't been as civil as I can, but feel that while I stopped this towards you some time ago, you have persisted, and as of late, you have only gotten worse. The people who oppose your edits or references aren't a cabal or fascists or dumb Americans.--MONGO 20:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can't expect me to unliterary disarm. There needs to be reform on both sides. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, asking for reform only.--MONGO 20:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are you condemning me to an eternity of bad Karma, Mongo? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney(Hows my driving?) 20:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- The way I see it we have three options:
- Go Long: Keep this RfC open forever as a bitching post.
- Go Big: Take it to arbitration.
- Go Home: Give up.
- Unfortunately, none of them are good options and it seems likely that the civil war will continue regardless. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I like this option: "NuclearZero has a good idea on
his talk pagehere- lets hammer out a code of practice for controversial topics." Travb (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)- I wasn't attempting to aim that big and its surely nothing new. I just think if you add something you should support it with citations, those citations should pass WP:RS WP:V of course per policy. I just think the more contentious an article is, the more necessary it is to have sources at the time the information is added, the correct way to say you don't believe, or this is wrong, is with counter citations, or citation tags if there is no citations. This followed with the patience and open mindedness to see if its true or not, meaning to actually wait to see if sources are provided. Then the retesting of sources. Don't get me wrong nothing is fool proof, but saying you exhausted the patience of that topic is easier after dismissing (in a valid manner) a few rounds of bad sources. --Nuclear
Zer021:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't attempting to aim that big and its surely nothing new. I just think if you add something you should support it with citations, those citations should pass WP:RS WP:V of course per policy. I just think the more contentious an article is, the more necessary it is to have sources at the time the information is added, the correct way to say you don't believe, or this is wrong, is with counter citations, or citation tags if there is no citations. This followed with the patience and open mindedness to see if its true or not, meaning to actually wait to see if sources are provided. Then the retesting of sources. Don't get me wrong nothing is fool proof, but saying you exhausted the patience of that topic is easier after dismissing (in a valid manner) a few rounds of bad sources. --Nuclear
- Personally, I like this option: "NuclearZero has a good idea on
- How about we create a sandbox for each controversial article. New sections must be written and discussed there. We have a vote for inclusion of each section. Only then do we include it in the actual article. That might diffuse some of the tensions. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I always say no because it just allows a concensus to form without it being based on policy. If you duel with sources your sword will always be sharper, the better the sources, the more stable your arguement. For instance if you are trying to prove something or state something and all you have are blogs, you should ask yourself how reliable is this really for an encyclopedia if all I can find are blogs to support it? --Nuclear
Zer021:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I always say no because it just allows a concensus to form without it being based on policy. If you duel with sources your sword will always be sharper, the better the sources, the more stable your arguement. For instance if you are trying to prove something or state something and all you have are blogs, you should ask yourself how reliable is this really for an encyclopedia if all I can find are blogs to support it? --Nuclear
- How about we create a sandbox for each controversial article. New sections must be written and discussed there. We have a vote for inclusion of each section. Only then do we include it in the actual article. That might diffuse some of the tensions. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Of course policy and quality of sources will still apply. But requiring that every edit be perfect from the instant you click 'save' is also a touch 'anti-wiki'. Perhaps having to prepare sections on a sandbox will allow some space for things to develop and take some heat out of the arguments, while ensuring that the article presented to the public is never 'impure'. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Pure", no, but sound, yes. The problem with many things in contention is simply a lack of sources. If they existed from solid sources there would be no arguement, you can attempt to attack the sources, but sound foundation will allow it to hold up to a barrage. If you want to edit a political article that there is high heat on, then you should do yourself and everyone else a favor and make sure what you are adding is verifiable and sound. Its not anti-wiki, its actually very wiki to follow WP:RS and WP:V when you add something, too many people take this too lax, which its not your job, it is an encyclopedia. You should not throw your opinion in or someone else's without saying who etc. I think too many people do not realize that someone is going to read what they wrote, or realize it too well and want to affect the person instead of just report the facts. We arent here to change hearts and minds, we are here to better this encyclopedia foundation, and much like science articles are held to a higher standard of verifying and checking, political articles often deal with people or entire groups and should attempt to strive for that as well. If not for any other reason then to save yourself the headache of tracking sources later, message on your talk page etc. Just to clarify, at no point am I actually reffering directly to you, just saying you, as I am addressing everyone will read this. You know I already hold your sourcing ability in high regard. --Nuclear
Zer022:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Pure", no, but sound, yes. The problem with many things in contention is simply a lack of sources. If they existed from solid sources there would be no arguement, you can attempt to attack the sources, but sound foundation will allow it to hold up to a barrage. If you want to edit a political article that there is high heat on, then you should do yourself and everyone else a favor and make sure what you are adding is verifiable and sound. Its not anti-wiki, its actually very wiki to follow WP:RS and WP:V when you add something, too many people take this too lax, which its not your job, it is an encyclopedia. You should not throw your opinion in or someone else's without saying who etc. I think too many people do not realize that someone is going to read what they wrote, or realize it too well and want to affect the person instead of just report the facts. We arent here to change hearts and minds, we are here to better this encyclopedia foundation, and much like science articles are held to a higher standard of verifying and checking, political articles often deal with people or entire groups and should attempt to strive for that as well. If not for any other reason then to save yourself the headache of tracking sources later, message on your talk page etc. Just to clarify, at no point am I actually reffering directly to you, just saying you, as I am addressing everyone will read this. You know I already hold your sourcing ability in high regard. --Nuclear
Discussion of NIST and Peer Review
"Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo!"10:14, 30 April 2006 - "Mongo's contribution to the world of science."
- This after Mongo had told us his personal definition of 'peer-reviewed'. A term he uses to remove things he doesn't like and promote things he does. Mongo thinks something is peer-reviewed if a lot of people wrote it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess this is the "crazy personal definition of 'peer reviewed'" you are mentioning? "Mongo thinks something is peer reviewed if lots of people wrote it?. No, I think something is peer reviewed if it stands up to cross examination from outside parties, and no authoritative figures or entities have claimed that the findings of NIST have any flaws in their reports that are of any merit to speak of.--MONGO 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you still maintain that definition. No. It isn't peer reviewed if lots of people have read it either. Peer review is a complex process involving anonymous reviewers and taking place before publication. The NIST report was not peer reviewed and its authors don't claim it was. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- And what entity of any substance challeges the findings...that is the point...no one of any credibility has refuted the NIST findings...if someone does, then so be it. Sorry you think I am a haggard soul...let me know what I can do to make you think differently of me. I don't want to be thought of as a dumb American or a haggard soul.--MONGO 16:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- That wasn't the issue in that discussion. You were pushing the incorrect claim that NIST was peer-reviewed. As for the "credibility" of someone questioning NIST, there of course isn't anyone and never could be. This is because as soon as someone questions NIST, by your definition, they lose credibility, because they then become a 'conspiracy theorist'. This is circular logic at its finest. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well surely there must be some respected entity that would question the NIST findings...do you completely dismiss the findings of several thousand contributors to not be essentially comparable to a normal peer-review process? If the facts were off, don't you think that the potential for financial gain (or for the sake of "honesty") would be sufficient to ensure at least a small handful of these collaborative contibutors would come forward and provide proof that there was a government coverup of sorts? You do know that federal employees in the U.S. are rarely rich I imagine. Is there any reputable entity that has refuted the findings of NIST? Are you also saying that the numerous engineers who have agreed with the findings of the NIST reports have not by stating their agreement performed a peer review?--MONGO 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm saying that. They were deceived by BAD science made by NIST with much help of govermnent. You might want to read critiqe of NIST by Kevin Ryan and decide if it makes sense... you might want to check how many scientists are members of Scholar for 9/11 Truth.... but you probably won't. SalvNaut 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- There are a number of separate issues here. First, true or not, the NIST document simply wasn't peer-reviewed. And no-one claims it was. I think it isn't even common for official government reports to be peer-reviewed. Certainly I can't think of any. That is just a fact, and is a separate issue from whether NIST was good science or not.
- As for financial gain... I've never heard of a government wistleblower making any money from his efforts. You usually get fired and, having been labeled as a trouble maker, find it hard to find a new job. There was, in fact, a NIST wistleblower who got fired. I know you think he was a 'conspiracy loon', but that is quite apart from the fact that he did exist, did complain, did go to the press and was fired. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- So, like Steven E. Jones, he had a story to tell and he didn't deserve to be scrutinized? But surely, one or even a few folks could certainly capitalize, many have on numerous other things, and gotten quite rich doing so...you do understand that there were hundreds of private sector structural engineers and other entities that contributed to the NIST reports as consultants...why would virtually all of them be loyal to a fallacy?--MONGO 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Steven Jones's paper was peer-reviewed by 4 PhDs (two of them physicists). Peer review process, when made, states the fact that paper "makes sense", that there is "a case" with it. Anyway, Jones main point in it is a call for another investigation. SalvNaut 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of any government employee who has gone public to point out a government crime or fraud (any issue, any time) and has made money doing it? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Mostly it's a private sector thing...but involves the feds...not sure they got rich, yet, but certainly blew the whistle..., , , , ...the point is, people talk, and in all of these examples, their whistleblowing proved to be based on facts that led to major upheavals...I'll be waiting patiently for a whistleblower to come forward about the NIST reports as being a fabrication.--MONGO 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Never said there weren't wistleblowers, the question was whether any made money off it, as you were suggesting. None of those you listed seem to have done well after. And of course we've had one wistleblower from NIST. But he is by definition not credible because he suggests there is a conspiracy. Circular logic. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- One would hope that profit wouldn't be the only reason to "come forward"...but seriously, you do realize that about 30% of the investigators that worked on the NIST report, those that contributed knowledge, were private consultants? And the NIST report has been completely open...anyone can read it...yet not one engineering agency of any reputation has refuted the findings...seems odd. Okay, I'm usually well read, so who is this whistleblower who used to work at NIST?--MONGO 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I assume you mean Kevin Ryan?--MONGO 18:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I think profit is never a reason, because they never make a profit. Where would they get it from? Kevin Ryan is the guy. As for other engineering agencies refuting the findings - they never do this for anything. Its not their job. They don't even read NIST reports unless it impacts on their businesses.
- The NIST report is public and I've read it. I also heard the head of NIST interviewed on Irish radio a few weeks back. He claimed their study found that the building collapsed because of temperatures above 1000c. However, nowhere in the NIST report does it say this. So, if he is that 'mistaken' when talking to the media, should we trust his report? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- You mean William Jeffrey? I'd like to see you source for that information.--MONGO 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Kevin Ryan...I think the article on him was deleted since he was deemed to be not notable? Now he's the main one that was a NIST employee wo claims the feds covered the events of 9/11 up?--MONGO 19:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- So, these engineering firms simply choose to ignore NIST...why would they do that?--MONGO 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that they ignore NIST generally, they simply read those reports that effect their businesses. How many would have taken the time to read this particular report in full? And why would they - it doesn't impact on their businesses. How many engineering firms have read it and officially and publicly agreed with it? I'd be interested if any have. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, come on now...that's like stating that people in particular fields don't read each other's work...like a physical anthropologist wouldn't read a publically accessible paper by another physical anthropologist just because it may not be of a profit to them...I find that difficult to believe. Surely, a publically accessible paper such as the NIST report would have been extremely interesting to a plethora of engineers. Yet, no one of repute has rejected the findings? You let me know when you find prove that the NIST report is based on a falacy for I would love to read it.--MONGO 05:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm... 10 hours between the question and Mongo's reply. Am I to assume that you spent some time trying to find a single engineering firm which publicly supports this NIST report and failed? Until I see someone credible and notable publicly support the report, accusations that no one has publicly challenged it are moot. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 13:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- So, like Steven E. Jones, he had a story to tell and he didn't deserve to be scrutinized? But surely, one or even a few folks could certainly capitalize, many have on numerous other things, and gotten quite rich doing so...you do understand that there were hundreds of private sector structural engineers and other entities that contributed to the NIST reports as consultants...why would virtually all of them be loyal to a fallacy?--MONGO 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you still maintain that definition. No. It isn't peer reviewed if lots of people have read it either. Peer review is a complex process involving anonymous reviewers and taking place before publication. The NIST report was not peer reviewed and its authors don't claim it was. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess this is the "crazy personal definition of 'peer reviewed'" you are mentioning? "Mongo thinks something is peer reviewed if lots of people wrote it?. No, I think something is peer reviewed if it stands up to cross examination from outside parties, and no authoritative figures or entities have claimed that the findings of NIST have any flaws in their reports that are of any merit to speak of.--MONGO 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What does this have to do with Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Seabhcan? Shouldn't this be moved to the page you guys are aruging about? Travb (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttals
This is moved from the main page, a point by point response, there are not to be any disendorsement sections are replies are not to take place in the main space. So its moved here and the main page will be cleaned out, only sections reposted are ones with responses:
Incivility and personal attacks
- "To be honest, I don't think it would make any difference. After months and years of dealing with people like morty, TDS, Mongo, and the rest, it is clear that they have no interest in wikipedia. They are here to push their personal nationalistic bias. History, citation, reality, take a back seat to promotion of their personal myths."23:09, 17 November 2006
- I stand by this comment and believe it to be true. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- "On wikibreak - sick of talking to dumb people of certain nations who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history."20:08, 31 October 2006 - Removed after extensive discussion.
- 13:15, 8 October 2006 edit summary "Saint Mongo of Factoid has pronounced upon this topic, but not yet blessed us with a holy citation, let us pray this will be improved in future"
- This in reply to Mongo changing the intro, providing no supporting references, and leaving an edit summary "Baloney". Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- There weren't any supporting references there prior to my edit either.--MONGO 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- This in reply to Mongo changing the intro, providing no supporting references, and leaving an edit summary "Baloney". Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- "I think we've reached the same old impass again. Mongo doesn't want anything changed, Tom is afraid of changing anything and MMX1 (which stands for "Mini-Me of Mongo X1") will chime in any moment now with a WP:NPA warning."14:30, 21 July 2006
- (And he did!) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- "This article is his personal kitty-litter and he won't stand to see it defiled with fact or information."10:59, 20 July 2006
- (this is my favourite, ha ha) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Ha ha. Mongo - I don't doubt that you 'spread lies', as you put it, in your spare time."11:13, 20 July 2006
- In reply to Mongo's suggestion that his employer, the US Federal Government, pays him to edit. I believe he edits in his (ample) free time. Mongo seems to be some sort of lumberjack in real life. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose a homosexual lumberjack, no less? Just another example of your inability to remain civil.--MONGO 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not a Monty Python fan, eh? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose a homosexual lumberjack, no less? Just another example of your inability to remain civil.--MONGO 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- In reply to Mongo's suggestion that his employer, the US Federal Government, pays him to edit. I believe he edits in his (ample) free time. Mongo seems to be some sort of lumberjack in real life. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- "(Mongo's insults don't bother me. I've come to realise that he's probably just a 15 year old kid using his dad's computer, laughing through his zits at what he can get away with)"16:07, 4 May 2006
- This in reply to Mongo calling me "the Forest Gump of Physics" Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- And as if I wasn't provoked by you to begin with? Like when you threatened to block me while we were in the midsts of an editing dispute?--MONGO 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- You mean the dispute you were refusing to discuss and had revert twice. Are you personally exempt from the 3RR Mongo? (EDIT: Seems not...) al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, imagine that .--MONGO 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- You mean the dispute you were refusing to discuss and had revert twice. Are you personally exempt from the 3RR Mongo? (EDIT: Seems not...) al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- And as if I wasn't provoked by you to begin with? Like when you threatened to block me while we were in the midsts of an editing dispute?--MONGO 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- This in reply to Mongo calling me "the Forest Gump of Physics" Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo!"10:14, 30 April 2006 - "Mongo's contribution to the world of science."
- See discussion of this comment on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#Discussion_of_NIST_and_Peer_Review
- "Here's some more anti-semitic bilge from Monty" 12:18, 11 November 2006 and the edit summary "Monty and TDC, brothers in antisemitism" And 10:47, 11 November 2006, where Morton tells him that it isn't "Monty" prior to the 12:18, 11 November 2006 edit.
- This after Morty Devonshire accused Dr. Ganser of antisemitism, see below.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Thats daft. First . . ." (referring to Tbeatty's reasoning in the previous paragraph) 17:29, 13 November 2006
- This in reply to the suggestion by Tbeatty that Ganser had published his PhD thesis simultaneously to push a 'left-wing' agenda and to make money.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Yes. Bauder gave a stupid answer so I don't accept it. Really Mongo, for someone from "the land of the free" you are amazingly against free speach and discussion. What are you afraid of?" 13:30, 11 November 2006
- Admin Fred Bauder admonishing Admin Seabhcan: "I think you jump a little quickly to extreme conclusions. Calling those who disagree with you fascists is over the top. . . " 11:21, 19 November 2006
- Morty - I thought this was meant to be devoted to my witty comments, not what other people said about me? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Interesting how you now use sources to prove your point, yet criticize me above for 'anti-american' sources. Zmag and counterpunch? Mongo, I'm surprised you read such anti-american, McChomsky trash. Really now! you should hand in your passport" 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- This in reply to Mongo using a Zmag ref to suggest that Reporters Without Borders was some sort of CIA conspiracy. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- "To be honest, I don't think it would make any difference. After months and years of dealing with people like morty, TDS, Mongo, and the rest, it is clear that they have no interest in wikipedia. They are here to push their personal nationalistic bias. History, citation, reality, take a back seat to promotion of their personal myths."23:09, 17 November 2006