Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:01, 30 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

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)

MONGO has repeatedly violated our Civility and No personal attacks policies

This represents only half of the most recent 500 edits of MONGO, in the past two days ONLY.

In the time I have spent researching this, the below tone is consistent throughout all of MONGOs edits, from when he became an editor in Jan 2005. I have reseached his Jan 2005 edits, his July 2006 edits, and his most recent edits. The tone, incivility, and wikipedia violations are consistently the same.

Relevance: Almost all of these edits of MONGO here (if not all of these edits), center around all of the same 9/11 pages which MONGO and Seabhcan have debated on "for the past 6 months".

WP:NPA violations

• 09:50, 29 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, Trolling removed
• 09:49, 29 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, trolling remove...will start removing all trolling for no on Also WP:BITE violation.
• 09:34, 29 November 2006, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Block review requested I have blocked Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week for disruption and trolling....Cplot has been trolling various articles and has been repeatedly trying to add NPOV tags for which there is no consensus and when asked what he feels the issues are that make the article unbalanced, he gives vague referencing that the article is controlled by the feds (US GOvernment) and the like.
• 09:26, 29 November 2006, User talk:Cplot, Cplot...I told you several times to remove a nonexistant category from the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page...you deliberately acted dumb about it. Then you added it here on your own talk page.
• 22:58, 28 November 2006, User talk:Cplot, yopu might as well give up as I think anyone surely sees that your efforts are nothing but disruption. I'm heading out, if you're up to the same antics tomorrow, you're done on wikipedia. Straighten up or get lost.
• 22:52, 28 November 2006, User talk:Cplot, Cplot...remove the vandalism category from that talkpage. The games are done.--
• 20:37, 28 November 2006, User talk:MONGO "remove trolling"

WP:AGF

• 15:36, 29 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, We are not going to go into a long diatribe about the Iraq War in this article.
• 20:25, 28 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, I think that it's clear to anyone that you are only on wikipedia for the purposes of disruption. Now, go report that I have violated WP:BITE.
• 20:05, 28 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, You don';t get your way so you attack others? I repeat...there is no NPOV tag on this article and won't be until you can demonstrate what the problems are with the neutrality of the article.
• 20:02, 28 November 2006, User talk:Cplot, You're just disruptive, nothing more and I have done nothing "wrong" as you indicated
• 14:05, 28 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, Please don't come to my talk page and misrepresent the facts of the case.

General incivility

• 22:16, 28 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, I am more convinced than ever that you are right...surely the illuminati/"feds"/Reptilian master race are in control of what goes on in this article...I wish I had noticed this sooner.
• 18:55, 28 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, Deleting heading of Cplot. Cplot...keep my name out of it...this is not the way to act if you want something done
• 17:28, 28 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, Your attempts to introduce misinformation in this article has been repeatedly overturned by a large number of editors...clear indication that the consensus is not in favor of your alterations. My arbcom case here has nothing to do with this article...zero. Yes, when people come along and try and force feed us a bunch of nonsense like you have been doing for a long time now, we can waste our time rebutting your comments, say nothing at all (probably the best option), or just provide a simple...No thanks.

Ability to accept alternate views

• 09:13, 28 November 2006, David Ray Griffin it is not an alternative theory...that is simply untrue...
• 09:06, 28 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, You give yourself too much credit. When you showed up at the Collapse article, you had every intention of adding in the CT stuff...myself and others made sure that the junk science stayed out, forcing you to stick to the known facts of that case. After reworking that article, you then proceeded to others where the CT jargon was more tolerable.

Please remember, the above only represents the past 2 days, less than 250 edits of MONGO. As time permits, I will continue to add more.

User:TheronJ retorts below, ignore two very important facts: that Cplot was a newbie and MONGO violated WP:BITE, that MONGO consistently treats many wikiusers this way, accusing many wikiusers of harrassment and trolling, which violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA (as I will show in exhastive detail later). How would User:TheronJ respond to MONGO's treatment of User:Lovelight?

Travb (talk) 20:50, 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 Lovelight

Vigor

MONGO's robust, zealous and vigorous actions, as well as particular way in which he ends or disrupts discussions can easily cause resent, perhaps even outrage. What you'll read below is a letter of mine, it was addressed to 'unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org', you may find it a bit silly, and I had to cut a few sentences but it should serve its purpose and describe how easily encounter with MONGO throws of balance… Why would I present such unorthodox evidence? Please keep in mind that it was written by stunned newcomer, I had very little knowledge about policies or inner-works then… To keep things in perspective, this was around 911 memorial so there were lot's of tensions, there were some really ridiculous government warnings (tags) and very poor language all over 911 talk page… in other, more related words, MONGO was particularly edgy at the time, so he would huff and puff and blow things in his way… as a result every discussion (or editor) which strayed of the "path" was immediately "chocked to death". To some extent this problem persists today…

8/22/06

Subject: 911 & Lemmings (disputed article 911)

"I want that article about 911 attacks changed, you have to understand that there is nothing destructive about discussing it… it's about different points of view… you are not doing anything there but keeping the status quo… I won't take it, I'm no vandal, I know what will happen if I start to edit disputed article… But I won't discussion to be discussion… every single link commander MONGO removed from there was more than closely related to the article… One thing is for sure, you won't (and I won't let you) moderate me… User MONGO better explain his standing point, for at this moment he is nothing but lie, deceit and/or an very old form of anomaly? So say it, if you have anything to say? There is no argument you have, which I won't destroy in a free fall… I will be free to write politely and speak kindly what ever I wish, when ever I wish, and on any level of my conciseness… thank you for that lock out…

PS

As I've seen user MONGO is our administrator? The man who poses behind those towers on his own page, and then obstructs and destructs every chance for discussion? He' is no administrator of mine… this issue has to be resolved. If people don't know what's at stake here, they simply wont know…

With Peace & Love,

USER: LoveLight"

Libelous misconduct of Wiki editor?

Fact is, MONGO's conduct with editors (especially with rookies) is a bit like military drill, or perhaps good old police work. Arguments as: "No." or "Move along, nothing to see here…" are occurring once to often. Such actions or conclusions would probably be understandable if they would come after decent discussion. But it's fairly easy to verify otherwise. I've checked (some of) the policies and I'd say that MONGO is breaking too many too openly, so perhaps he shouldn’t walk around and openly accuse others? Of course from my perspective, having a duel with arbitrators is far more complicated then shaking hands…

Introducer

Then again, after introductions such as this one: "He's been warned. Let's see if he responds appropriately. I suppose we should leave off the boilerplate for now, especially since we already have a troll warning at top.--MONGO 07:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)" and my increased interest in boilerplates, me and MONGO learned to get along. Right MONGO? Here and there we share a few kind words of disagreement, and life goes on…

MONGOquotes

Quite frankly...who gives a crap what you think? The event happened in the U.S. and your anti-American bias is so obvious you can cut it with a knive so shove off. I don't go into articles about events that happened in countries outside the U.S. and tell them they're biased. You're failure to see that the events of 9/11 were textbook level definitions of terrorism betray your obvious anti-American bias. Stop wasting our time with this radical nonsense.--MONGO 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'll spin it the UN way.--MONGO 04:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, islamofascists it is then.--MONGO 12:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what a bunch of bullshit.--MONGO 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TheronJ

Response to TravB's accusations that MONGO is incivil

I have been curious about the accusations raised against MONGO, et al., so I checked out the first few links TravB offered. Those edits are so obviously not problematic that I'm not inclined to read more. Specifically:

• An anonymous editor wrote, in full:

From reading through these Fed losers pathetic antics. it looks like each of them believes if they work realy hard, dutifully standing watch over this article they'll get to be the one to blow Prsident Bush. I can see why they work so hard at it. Give those men a cigar.

• MONGO deleted that talk page edit and called it "trolling.", (Accurately, IMHO).
• Incredibly, TrabB concludes that by calling the anonymous editor's contribution "trolling," MONGO has committed a personal attack.(See first two entries above, or here if you want the diff).

As I've said, that kind of judgment doesn't fill me with a desire to read through the rest of TravB's accusations, although I suppose someone should at least take a look at a random sampling. TheronJ 04:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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.