Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Seabhcan: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:02, 19 November 2006 editStone put to sky (talk \| contribs)2,113 edits →Outside view of []← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:14, 19 November 2006 edit undoStone put to sky (talk \| contribs)2,113 edits →Outside view of []Next edit →
Line 175:		Line 175:

	# ] 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)		# ] 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			# ] 14:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

	===Outside view of ]===		===Outside view of ]===

Revision as of 14:14, 19 November 2006

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC).

Seabhcan (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

Seabhcán is persistently uncivil, and continues to make personal attacks after being asked several times by different people to stop. This has been going on for some time, and occurs in editing related to pages involving terrorism, US foreign policy, and conspiracy theories, making already difficult areas harder yet to work on. On two occasions he has used his admin tools in questionable ways on pages he actively edits, giving the appearence of maintaining a disputed page as he prefers it.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

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

Incivility and personal attacks

"I don't know but I'm open to suggestions! Really, there are only 5-10 of these problem editors. However, they seem to have an extraordinary amount of time to devote to their trolling. We honest editors have real lives to live. If we had a solid group of about 20-30 editors willing to cover wikipedia in shifts and to shout down this POV-pushing then we could balance them (or force their employers to hire a few more goons to edit)"17:34, 18 November 2006
"You can try, and you may win some battles. The problem is that this group of editors will wait like vultures until you or others lose interest and move on. Then they'll go to work again stripping away material that they don't want others to see."16:27, 18 November 2006
"I agree. Thanks for your support. Mo-ty needs to learn to put his fanatical nationalism to one side when he edits."21:45, 17 November 2006
"Oh, but pushing Mo-ty's buttons is so easy and fun. You should try. Its addictive." 21:57, 17 November 2006
"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)

"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)

08:50, 21 july 2006 "I think you need a holiday - or a psychiatrist."
"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)

09:30, 3 July 2006
"Thanks for the pep talk Guinnog, but I'm too fed up with this wanker to work on the 9/11 stuff anymore."18:45, 3 June 2006
"(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)

"I think its a fair comment given your recent trolling and accusations of 'junk science'. "20:18, 30 April 2006
"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 crazy 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)

11:46,10 November 2006 edit summary ". . . Please learn something about European history before you edit."
"You should perhaps consider using your education when you make edits. To claim that Gladio is a hoax is laughable. I had assumed you were merely ignorant. Obviously that isn't the reason you made such a silly edit. What is the reason?"16:56, 10 November 2006
"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)

". . . Misplaced Pages seems to be dominated by a bunch of anti-free speach fascists, . . ." 11:28, 11 November 2006 and the edit summary "(monkeys run the zoo.)"
". . . Doing that makes you seem dishonest, when perhaps, you are merely lazy." 14:45, 10 November 2006
"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)

3RR

At Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America:

14:58, 12 November 2006 blocked for 3RR

Broad accusations regarding "Americans"

"Hi 81.165... The answer is no. Your research will not be accepted. If anything you add is in any way objectionable to the American editors, or any one of them, they will gang up on you and bully you out of wikipedia. It doesn't matter how many references or sources you have. Wiki-reality is what the American editors say it is. If Bush says up is down and down is up, then this article will be up for deletion tomorrow (its clearly conspiracy cruft anyway)"10:44, 18 November 2006
". . . 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.
". . . Part of the problem is that for many American editors the events of 9/11 have become a kind of religious dogma"07:57, 20 July 2006

Use of admin tools

At Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America:

Talk notice Request before the fact.
10:19, 22 August 2006 - edit after the page was protected; discussion at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/archive3#Edit request
Talk notice - explanation after the fact.

At Operation Gladio:

21:44, 10 November 2006 User:Morton_devonshire reduces article back to stub.
21:44, 10 November 2006 - reverted by AntiVandalBot.
00:14, 11 November 2006 - User:Tbeatty deletes part of intro.
00:21, 11 November 2006 reverted
00:24, 11 November 2006 protected
00:24, 11 November 2006 tagged protected
07:20, 11 November 2006 User:Centrx unprotects the page
12:16, 12 November 2006 - Seabcan's explanation
12:02, 11 November 2006 - User:Steel359 re-protects the page.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Misplaced Pages:Protection policy Reverts then protects a page; Edits protected page

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

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

My defense -- the context.

Yes I have been uncivil at times to users such as Morton Devonshire, Mongo, TDS, Tbeaty, and a few others. This is not because I disagree with these users. It is because these users have been consistently trollish and abusive towards me and my work. As a counter example, I often disagree with Tom Harrison, yet he is a perfectly civil user and our conversations are often productive. The same cannot be said for some of the other users. This group of editors patrol Misplaced Pages looking for information to which they object for nationalistic reasons, no matter how well researched or referenced. Evidence suggests that they find these articles by wikistalking certain editors. They also seem to play as an organised 'tag team', taking turns to revert so as not to break the 3RR. They communicate off-wiki by e-mail. Morton maintains a list of his team, although the hard core are fewer in number.

The Gladio Dispute

The article on Operation Gladio was started in November 2004. It grew gradually over the following months with contributions from many different editors. Tom Harrison made a number of very helpful contributions through 2004, 2005. . By October 2006 the article had grown into a huge, if disorganised, article with over 60 references and external links. I was aware of the article but did not edit until recently - and then only to add sources or revert vandalism. After this the following editors began attempts to strip the article down without regard to research or fact.

Morton Devonshire -- Hoax notice 1, attacks sources (StateWatch - this site hosted copies of old newspaper articles), attacks sources, Hoax notice 3, rm 90% of article - reverted by AntiVandalBot,

Tbeatty -- Hoax notice 4, rm material, again - saying its a 'conspiracy',

Intangible -- rv 1 Hoax notice 2, rm sourced material - says its conspiracy theory, rm material - edit summary 'this is bullocks',

Brimba -- rm StateWatch, notice 6 - not 'hoax' this time but 'totallydisputed',

Sockpuppet? - hoax notice 5

Daniele Ganser

This cabal of editors has also made it their mission to attack the work and character of Dr. Daniele Ganser and force removal of all mention of him. This is clearly because Ganser's work is a peer-reviewed academic source from a top university. Morton Devonshire maintains a list of articles which reference Ganser in the hope of removing them all. TDC attacks Ganser's character, baselessly calling him an antisemite , . Morton Devonshire has repeated this accusations many times on talk pages. TDC has removed reference to Ganser based on this imagined antisemitism . These editors have never given a credible reason for judging Ganser's work unreliable. They first claimed it was unreliable because Ganser joined ST9/11.org two years after publication. This turned out not to be true, so they moved on to attacking his character. Many times I and other users have politely asked them why and they refuse to answer, instead invoking their 'tag team' skills to change the subject.

Even after Ganser was removed from one article, Morton Devonshire removed vast amounts of other referenced material while leaving a misleading edit summary claiming the material was Ganser related . When this is reverted, the tag team again comes in and removes it again, and again.

They have yet to give an explanation of why this peer reviewed source is unacceptable. Seeing that they have had months to provide this and have refused, my benefit-of-the-doubt assumption of good faith is wearing thin.

(more to follow) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

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

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

User:Travb

User:Seabhcan is currently on a wikivacation, probably to defuse the tension and animosity, before he left, User:Seabhcan wrote:

Tom, I don't believe these editors are here for the betterment of wikipedia. I think they edit here to push their personal POV. The evidence of this is ample and I see no reason to pretend that isn't true. I assume good faith and their actions prove me wrong. I won't stop seeing the elephant in the room. I don't condemn anyone for being a particular nationality, but when an editor comes here only to push their nationalism and bias, I point that out. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan, while "calling the kettle black", being a POV warrior himself, has a good point. See: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The same group of editors, continue to push their own POV. I readily admit that I am one of those editors, along with Seabhcan and Tom Harrison.

I agree with Seabhcan, all of these editors, including myself are here to push their personal POV, and are biased.

I disagree with Seabhcan though, I do believe we are all here "for the betterment of wikipedia", the problem is we all have different definitions of what makes wikipedia better.

I personally feel that calling other people "trolls" does not help make wikipedia better. That said, I also think that deleting large sections of referenced text, putting well referenced pages up for AfD, using wikipolicy as a weapon to push your own POV, also does not help make wikipedia any better. When wikiusers use RfCs, ANIs, and wikipolicy to push there own blatant biases, then something is seriously wrong with the way wikipedia works, and wikipedia needs to be fixed.

Seabhcan behavior clearly does not meet WP:NPA. That said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." It is only fair that the users who are on the other side of the edit war should have their own RfCs (as many of them have in the past), and if Seabhcan gets punished for WP:NPA, then we all should be, including myself. Travb (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view of User:Junglecat

I perceive User:Seabhcan as very confrontational and disruptive against users who he disagrees with on edits to articles and the material presented. Instead of conducting a proper discussion on disputed material, he badgers and belittles specific users, especially targeting American users he disagrees with as he shows his bias per his user page posting here. My foremost interaction with Seabhcan was on Morton Devonshire’s talk page as the examples above are presented. I know it can be difficult to have a discussion on a controversial topic with someone who is insulting, especially when they are mocking your name with intentional misspelling and mispronunciation. Actually, I was shocked when I found out that Seabhcan was an admin! For him to demean others with insults that he disagrees with is not productive. In fact, it has a domino effect to the contrary. I wish this admin would be more respectful of all users, even those that don’t share his viewpoint. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 07:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All

User:Seabhcan has been less than civil at times, as most editors on Wiki have been at one time or another. I feel, however, that his actions have been precipitated by a coordinated effort by certain editors to 'Wikistalk' him, and these editors made bad faith edits on articles he is working on, and that the actions of several of the 'opposing' editors have been as bad or worse than his. Once again, editors from a private notice board have found an article, Operation Gladio, on which to wage a 'holy war' and Seabhcan may be seen as an 'enemy' who must be 'neutralized' lest he offer evidence that the US Gov, like all governments, has made mistakes and errors of judgement in the past. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of User:SalvNaut

What is this discussion about exactly? About Seabhcan character?

Seabhcan is an intelligent editor with limited patience. He often criticises other editors' actions on Misplaced Pages, using sarcasm, malicious satire.

Do those editors who put this request up, really feel so ofended by Seabhcan, that they can't sleep at night, can't edit Wiki articles? I don't think so. Seabhcan's "disruption" comes only when he strongly disagrees with someone (mainly, he looses his patience when dealing with subsequent, not explained deletions of his material). He express his disagreement accordingly to his character. At least you can be sure, that with Seabhcan you can have a TRUE discussion about a disagreement - he tells you what he thinks about your arguments, your actions. People have variety of characters, you might dislike Seabhcan's, but Seabhcan is not uncivil. He just pushes the discussion to a level many would like not to, for example, a bias within editors themselves (existing, or not - some could say this is a question, but it should be obvious that everyone has some kind of bias). Whether it is jutified to push discussion to such levels - I don't really know, it is a question much broader that this case. This is not uncivility, though.

So, what is the real reason for this? Did Seabhcan having been presented with arguments not follow logic and irrationally stayed with his POV? No, I haven't seen an example of that. Did he missused his administrator privileges? - it is one of 3 valid qestions here. I don't feel qualified enough to asses this.

The second valid question is, whether things which Seabhcan does are for the better quality of Misplaced Pages, or not. Then, why to distract attention from real issues to Seabhcan character? Why not to go back to the articles and respond to his arguments? Show him wrong with arguments - then, if he does not conform to arguments, put a request for comment with those examples. Again, I see no point in discussing those issues from this stance - suspected uncivility of Seabhcan. Discuss arguments and actions, not the style of Seabhcan discussion on Misplaced Pages, because this is not a case of some kid who doesn't know how to behave himself - Seabhcan is an experienced editor (with a tough, witty character).

Does the fact that Seabhcan thinks of some editors what he thinks, really hurt those editors sooo much? Maybe it's just me, but I doubt it. I, for example, suspect that many editors might think of me being "conspiracy nut" or something similiar, but I don't really care much. I give them right to, I just stick to the arguments, and wait for truth whatever it is.

So, I keep asking myself the 3rd question: what's the real reason for this request for comment - is it indeed, sincere, genuine concern with Misplaced Pages articles quality, concern with well-being of Misplaced Pages's editors? Or an attempt to "silence" Seabhcan and his arguments, while basing it on Seabhcan's tough character, not arguments themselves? --SalvNaut 13:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of User:Stone_put_to_sky

I have no problem whatsoever with Seabchan's rhetorical behavior or tone. I have been frequenting one of the boards on which this cabal of page vandals -- devonshire, travb, tdc, nuclearzero and their sockpuppets -- have fixated, and i consider seabchan's behavior to be politely understated, and exemplary in its patience and light-hearted goodwill.

On the other hand, the editors who initiated this complaint against him are guilty of wikistalking in the extreme. They are people who contribute little or nothing to any of the pages mentioned above, instead insisting that all content of these pages be stripped of any meaning or relevant links. Their combined activity on many of these pages consists solely in whittling away any and all content until nothing meaningful or relevant is left on the page.

This "complaint" against seabchan is simply one more aspect of their disingenuous shenanigans, and should be dismissed outright as frivolous and irrelevant. For the record: seabchan hasn't hunted around and found them, but rather they have found him, arriving on his pages in some cases long after his editorial presence had already been well established. Seabchan's comments on their character have been neither vulgar nor defamatory, and were occasioned in each case by the obviously vandalistic acts which these "editors" have displayed towards pages not to their political tastes.

The feigned indignation of this cabal is, from my perspective, nothing more than the over-pious hysteria of scheming dissemblers.Stone put to sky 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.