Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 29 November 2006

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Aude

Barnstar awarded to indef blocked User:TruthSeeker1234

User:Seabhcan began editing Collapse of the World Trade Center in April , which User:TruthSeeker1234 also edited. TS1234 who has since been indefinitely blocked in June for violations of WP:POINT with sockpuppet User:EngineerEd, and for general incivility, disruption, and "exhausting community patience". When TS1234's sockpuppet was known, Seabhcan rewarded TS1234 with a barnstar and regarding TS1234's block, Seabhcan remarked on TS1234's talk page :

My two cent is that all the editors posting here have achieved new and extraordinary levels of incivility, rudeness and POV pushing. This includes, but is not limited to, Tom Harrison, Morton Devonshire and particularly Mongo, who once proudly stated in ANI that "I intend to insult you and others" in reply to a request to be more civil. That he wasn't then censured, but infact supported by other wikipedians, proved to me that some editors are above the law, and I lost interest in defending the wiki. I haven't edited much since. It would be a happy day to see all these editors blocked - "a plague on both your houses"! Seabhcán 11:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by MONGO

Seabhcan has repeatedly violated our Civility and No personal attacks policies

Examples include: "...theres no point getting cross with Morton. His aims here are so hypocritical as to be laughable. He is a caricature wont unto flesh. His world view is so narrow that a cigarette paper of enlightenment could not be slipped between his prejudice and his bigotry, etc", "I think you need a holiday - or a psychiatrist.", "...or force their employers to hire a few more goons to edit", "...Misplaced Pages seems to be dominated by a bunch of anti-free speach fascists" and the edit summary "monkeys run the zoo", "This article is his personal kitty-litter and he won't stand to see it defiled with fact or information", "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", "Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo!", "To claim that Gladio is a hoax is laughable. I had assumed you were merely ignorant", "Here's some more anti-semitic bilge from Monty" with edit summary "Monty and TDC, brothers in antisemitism". More examples via comments and edit summaries can easily be found: , , , . Seabhcan repeatedly has referred to established editors that disagree with his edits as "trolls", a "cabal", and with other derogatory comments and was blocked on 11/25/2006 for a no personal attacks policy violation.

Seabhcan makes broad generalizations about "Americans"

Seabhcan seems to have some bias against "Americans" who he also refers to as "nationalistic" in a derogatory manner: "...sick of talking to dumb Americans who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history" (which he slightly altered after extensive discussion), "Mo-ty needs to learn to put his fanatical nationalism to one side when he edits", "They are here to push their personal nationalistic bias. History, citation, reality, take a back seat to promotion of their personal myths.", "I will point out that Tbeaty, Mongo, TDC, Morton Devonshire and others have been behaving as an unacceptable and trollish cabal who attempt to push their nationalist POV while punishing users who stand up to them" , "The problem is that Americans are uniquely defensive of what they think should be true, rather than what is true", and "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)", "...for many American editors the events of 9/11 have become a kind of religious dogma, and they are unwilling or unable to step back and consider them dispassionately". This kind of commentary is not conducive to an international effort to write an encyclopedia.

Seabhcan has misused his admin tools

Seabhcan violating Misplaced Pages:Protection policy when he edited the article Operation Gladio several times in one 24 hour period, "rm Hoax banner. What idiot put that there?", , and to avoid violating WP:3RR, on his next edit, he protected the page on his preferred version., . Seabhcan also edited the protected article Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, and there was discussion regarding this issue. Very early after Seabhcan and I were in our first encounters with each other, Seabhcan threatened to block me while he was engaged with me in an editing dispute.

Seabhcan has edit warred

Lately, Seabhcan has been blocked twice for violating the three revert rule, on 11/12 and 11/29/2006.

Harassment

After I gave a bad warning to indefinitely block User:SalvNaut for what I saw as a personal attack, Seabhcan then came to my talkpage and stated "My dearest Mongo, I have started an AN/I on you (sic) idiotic threat to block SalvNaut" He then engaged me in discussions on the matter both on my talkpage and at AN/I, where I admitted after reviewing others sentiments on the issue, I would not be blocking SalvNaut. During the course of these discussions, in which both Seabhcan and I were already online, Seabhcan then sent me two emails challenging me to block other editors who had commented on the situation. The emails weren't threatening or abusive, but they were obviously designed to harass and heighten the level of dispute in a deliberate effort to provoke an ill reaction from me. There was no call for the emails as we were already heavily engaged in discussions in two different locations on Misplaced Pages. But the harassment isn't limited to me. Seabhcan has repeatedly belittled others, condescendingly talking down to various editors, making pun on their username (User:Morton devonshire) , , and adding conflict where there should be none. As an administrator, Seabhcan should make better attempts to rise above such behavior, especially when dealing with non-admins.

My behavior

I admit I am very often blunt in my rhetoric, and as a skeptic, I always question information that is not mainstream. Seabhcan and I seem to have first encountered each other in April 2006, on articles related to the events of 9/11/2001. I think my short, oftentimes dismissive responses to non-mainstream "evidence" can oftentimes be seen as rude by others, perhaps evoking a poor response. I recently stated my belief regarding my encounters with Seabhcan by commenting to him "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"

User:Thomas Basboll started editing the Collapse of the World Trade Center article in July 2006. I believe he felt I had bitten him (a "newbie" editor at the time) and we discussed the situation recently here. My perspective is that Basboll was promotional of expanding the discussion related to alternative theories regarding the collapse of the World trade Center, and since almost nothing has ever been published by a reliable source that is verifiable that contradicts the known facts published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by every major media source, I have oftentimes dismissed such information as "nonsense", "junk science" and "rubbish". I also am a strong advocate of ensuring the undue weight clause of our NPOV policy are adhered to...in other words, since there are extremely few reliable sources from which we can reference any contradictory information regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center, in keeping with our undue weight application, the hypothesis which has no basis in fact is relegated to a short mention in the main article and if necessary, expansion in a "daughter" article elsewhere. Basboll was very communicative on his thoughts regarding substantive changes to the Collapse of the World trade Center article as shown here but it should be noted that a number of other editors there were also guarded as to the changes he proposed. An engineer who had worked on that article explained to Basboll why his efforts were being questioned, "Part of the skepticisim directed at you is also because you don't have much of an edit history" and was later told by User:Tom harrison, "Apparently new to Misplaced Pages, you jumped into a contentious article, made some improvements, and largely had your way with an extensive rewrite. Rejoice and be glad. You will be in a better position to judge Mongo's behavior after you have more experience.". I even pointed out to him a comment I made alluding to his efforts in my response to a question number 6 here stating "The article Collapse of the World Trade Center is an article I had worked on, until another editor showed up and made some fundamental changes which I at first opposed, yet now see his efforts to have been generally excellent". Basboll has also been easy to spot on the Steven E. Jones (an advocate that explosives may have been used to reduce the World Trade Center) article. While I completely disagree (as do virtually every civil engineer) with Jones's arguments, I have worked hard there to accomodate Basboll and others ensuring we enforce WP:BLP . As in the collapse of the WTC article, Basboll had proposed fundamental changes, not all of which I agreed with, yet I added what he wanted into the article for him while it was protected, and the discussion regarding this can be found here.

There has also been a request for comment regarding some disputed blocks I had perfomed. Though I had many persons who defended my actions, I signed most of the comments that made it clear that I should have others perform blocks when there is liklihood I am engaged in a content dispute.

Evidence presented by User:Travb

{Write your assertion here}

It's with heavy heart that I see this arbitration request come forward. It is not my intent to reignite the tempers which flared on the Administrator's Noticeboard, Bureacrat's Noticeboard, and various talk pages. It's also not my intent to declare any one party "right" or "wrong" in this, because as I see it, all parties have made such decisions for themselves. Instead, I feel this ArbCom came about because of all parties inability to comprimise, negotiate, and apologize. I feel what fueled this fire for so long was a level of personal attacks in the form of unsubstantiated accusations which do nothing to serve the goals of the encyclopedia. Unfortunatly, arbitration is necessary to give the involved parties an opportunity to substantiate their claims, and to give arbcom the opportunity to clarify what level of claims constitute opinion or personal attacks.

As the old saying goes, "Don't throw stones in a glass house". On wikipedia, this saying would be, don't accuse others of gross wikipedia violations and incivility if you are uncivil yourself. Travb (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.