Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Seabhcan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan page.

Contents

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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. [1] [2].

User:Seabhcan then starts to make fun of User:Morton devonshire name.[3]


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.[4] 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. [5]

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)

[edit] 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"[6]

User:Seabhcan 18:46, 10 November 2006 writes in edit: "Please learn something about European history before you edit." [7]

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 [8]

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. .... response by Derex: I have not a clue what Seabchan's pov is, nor have I ever "allied" with him. I made a few edits after observing vandalism by Devonshire (re-dir of Gladio to Hoax).

User:Intangible 14:02, 13 November 2006 writes in his edit: "this is bullocks"[9]. User:Seabhcan objects to 'bullocks' term with talk page message [10].

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)


[edit] There is a fine line between incivility and humor

  1. 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)


[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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. --NuclearZer0 16:27, 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. --NuclearZer0 16:29, 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. --NuclearZer0 16:53, 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.
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. --NuclearZer0 17:50, 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. Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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 Talk 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.[11]
I believe that all WP:NPA and policy violations should be dealt with equally. As I mentioned in Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Talk 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)

[edit] 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 page here - 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)
The way I see it we have three options:
  1. Go Long: Keep this RfC open forever as a bitching post.
  2. Go Big: Take it to arbitration.
  3. 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 page here- 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. --NuclearZer0 21:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
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? --NuclearZer0 21:36, 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 (except for the following). You know I already hold your sourcing ability in high regard. --NuclearZer0 22:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. But the power of wiki is that you can write the half of the article that you know, and someone else will finish the bit that they know. Its this work in progress style that gets things done.
As well as sources, there is also the common complaint of undue weight which can't always be countered with one click of the save button. Sometimes an editor may know a think is important but needs help and a bit of time to prove it. In other articles that editor is usually given that help and time. Here they are accused of POV pushing and trying to soapbox.
My idea is, for these difficult articles, to separate the reader from the work in progress so that no-one can claim that a thing is being added to affect the public. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"you can write the half of the article that you know" this is the problem, what you know, or people in general, is what is being contested. If you know it and believe it, take the time to source it. I don't think what I am asking is too hard, the truth is those who choose not to source will have their stuff tagged and removed and they will then cry of WP:OWN and other acronyms. I am not proposing that people be forced to source, simply telling everyone here that sourcing is how you should butt heads, not verbally or with NPA type comments. Pen > Sword, kinda thing. --NuclearZer0 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in any special editing rules for some articles or some editors. As far as I am concerned the only purpose of this RfC is to solicit comment on Seabhcan's behavior. That behavior, as demonstrated by his edits, will either change or not. Tom Harrison Talk 23:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Some feel this is important, if you don't you can choose not to participate, however this RfC is about everyone involved, not simply yourself, also following WP:RS and WP:V is not special rules, I am sorry you feel they are. --NuclearZer0 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Tom, there are 10 editors who signed overleaf that think there is more to this problem than my making fun of Mongo or Morty. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If you think there is a problem, ask for a third opinion, open an RfC on users or articles, post to WP:PAIN or the notice board, request mediation, use the dispute resolution procedure, comment here at as much length as you care to, or start an RfC on me; or do something else. I do not care why you call names or insult people, or what we might do to get you to stop. I care little what you say you will or will not do in the future. Do what you think is right, and so will I. Tom Harrison Talk 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
RE: "I do not care", "I care little"
Tom harrison, I am concerned when you say you do not care what another editor believes or thinks. How can we work together to build articles, if we state "I do not care", "I care little" about other peoples opinions, and make wide assumptions about other peoples views? (RE:... there is no objective truth, that all our actions are morally equivalent, or that there is no worse sin than hypocrisy.) Travb (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can work with Seabhcan if he stops calling names and insulting people. If not, then not. Tom Harrison Talk 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I can work well with anyone who behaves as you do, Tom. ie. Not blanking articles, not stripping sourced material, not making up false accusations of anti-semiticism, etc. As soon as Morty, TDC, Tbeaty, etc follow your code of conduct we can work. If not, then not. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Tom harrison and Seabhcan, "[a] reply of 'they do it too' is always unimpressive." As I mentioned above, this is called a "red herring" fallacy of logic.
I wish Seabhcan would sincerly apologize to those users who he has offended, bite his tongue when he is (possibly justifiably) angry about other editors behavior in the future, and we can all move on. There is a very fine line between humor and incivility, and humor, although it lets off steam, also can often be used to bait other users.
If other wikiusers need a RfC, we can set up a RfC. Although I think a RfC usually shows that civil conversation has failed, and no comprimise is possible, RfCs are terribly disruptive processes, which I think should always be used as a last resort... Travb (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I will be perfectly happy to apologise and bite my tongue as part of a general settlement. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Great, Seabhcan how about apologize to each person, starting with MONGO, and go from there. I have seen that model wikipedian apologizes first and never expects an apology in return. [It is something I am working on too, because it is so difficult to do].
Seabhcan, apologizing is a win-win move for everyone. The tension lowers, you come off as someone who wants to follow wikipolicy and as a wise, level-headed admin, and those you have fought with think twice about who you are, and may change their opinion of you, immediatly, or with time. Look at what happened when Nuclear decided to go out on a limb and support you, everyone, no matter what their previous views, are now praising him. Words cost you nothing, and can be very healing. I always say you "get more bees with honey, not vinegar"
Of course, the important thing is to follow these apologies with a change in behavior, this is always much harder to do. I wish you luck. Others might not follow your lead, but that is their loss. Stone is still mad at Nuclear, despite his change of heart and behavior. That just makes Stone look bad, not Nuclear.
I encourage you to take the first step towards reconcilation, Seabhcan. Travb (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Travb, but I just don't trust this cabal of editors will change. I see no reason to apologise to the wind when there is no-one willing to accept it. There are two sides to this dispute. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop reffering to people as a cabal, as much as you may think they are you are simply isolating yourself like the conspiracy theorists who claim of broad reaching massive plots to do XYZ. Its also not very appropriate here. --NuclearZer0 11:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This RFC has failed (cont.)

(indent) I don't believe I went on a limb technically as I feel strongly that Seabhcan is a model editor, I think he edits with facts supporting him or at least proper sources. I also am not one to ever offer empty apologies, which is what causes so much animosity perhaps between myself and other editors, I do not apologize unless I mean it to the utmost and I do not accept them unless I feel that the person offering truely means it, else its just empty words and the issues that lead to the apology will often continue anyway. I don't think an apology is really necessary, I think all this will really take is someone to be more strategic, more reserved and simply edit with sources supporting them, meaning at the time of the edit. That way there really can be no back and forth, the more reputable the source the more secure as I keep saying. If you want to pull your source from some obscure political group in the middle of a third world nation that is currently being over thrown and never had a candidate in office, then prepare to have someone call you on it. If your source is CNN, WaPo, BBC, then you are going to have more secure footing and can honeslty ignore anyone attempting to attack the WP:RS WP:V status of your source, which is normally why sources get taken out. --NuclearZer0 01:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the sparkes that lit this tiresome dispute is the cabal's removal of sourced information. The took aim at Ganser's book, and finding nothing wrong with the source, stated to claim that he was anti-semitic. This is dishonest. There is no-way to win against that behaviour. There is no more reputable source than peer-reviewed university publications. The cabal clearly wanted to remove it because they didn't like what it said. (CNNnnn? Oh, lordy! I wouldn't believe a word they say :-) ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 02:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the misunderstanding with people including yourself is they think they have to believe it. WP:RS and WP:V do not say that the information has to be a fact. The problem with Ganser is most things he says arent proven fact, yet its still WP:RS and WP:V, look at Chomsky his whole career is based on spewing his opinion ... --NuclearZer0 03:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I have always tried to remind people that wikipedia is a disciple of historicism. Specifically, I disagree with your criticism of Ganser (Have you read it?) 95% of Ganser's work is based on mainstream government and newspaper reports. You are correct about chomsky. However, because of his fame and popularity, Chomsky's opinion is notable.
As for the media - you should remember how much of what they spew out is opinion, hearsay and speculation. Take this recent murder in Lebanon. There is not a drop of evidence of any kind in the public domain. Yet the media has spent the last days constantly speculating on the perpetrator. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 10:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
We have gone over this, I told you I have no opinion on Ganser, people think he is wrong, you think he is right, that is the depth of it. I have also told you I did not read his work. From what I have read he based his findings on an obviously wrong document. As for Chomsky we are seeing eye to eye, my point was that he is WP:RS and WP:V and yet completely opinion based. As for media I don't believe or disbelieve it, and yet that isnt the point for here. The new Wikipedia slogan should be "On Wikipedia we do not care what you believe, just what you can source and verify." --NuclearZer0 11:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether he's right or not. He's notable. The difference between you and the others is that you honestly admit you haven't read Ganser and cannot pass judgement on its quality. Morty and TDC have also not read Ganser and yet they pass imagined judgement on the books content. For the record, the "obviously wrong document" is mentioned on only 3 (consequative)of the books 300 pages and does not form the basis of the work. I also don't accept that it is "obviously wrong". The US government has said the Soviets wrote it, the Soviets say the US wrote it. I see no reason to regard the US denial as 'obviously' true or the Soviet claim as 'obviously' false. And I certainly don't think that Wikipedia should have a preference. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 13:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not either, but I think that is the problem, by citing it we are saying to others it meets WP:RS and WP:V. While I do not dismiss the bulk of someones work over 1 document, I would wonder of the information based off that document. A book that uses information that is now thought to be a forgery becomes suspect, its like watching a 2 hour news report and finding out the middle 10 minutes was a lie, wouldnt it make you wonder about the rest? I didnt click the You Tube link but if I am rights its something showing certain CNN stories to be false? In your poisition you no longer trust CNN, out of millions of story it only took a fraction of them for you to change your mind about all of them ... see the point? I am not on either side of the debate, just want you to see the other side and understand. --NuclearZer0 13:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The CNNNN link is not to CNN at all but to an Australian comedy which pokes fun at CNN's style. Its really funny.
The document has been called a forgery since it turned up first in the 1970's. Ganser mentions it once in the book, one reference among the 960 sources, and he quotes the people saying its a forgery, as well as the people who say its real. Then he moves on and doesn't discuss it again.
Really, I think everyone working in this area needs to read the book. It available on Amazon.com. Otherwise, in a few months I'll have some time and I can scan my copy and email it to you and the others. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 13:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This RFC has *really* failed

Sad. A resolution was clearly in the works, based on the initial comments "This RFC has failed" generated. But the same circle that brought this RFC and now Arbitration would not allow everyone a face-saving way out. Name-calling and self-righteous bloviating over "sincere apologies" has put us back to Go. In Arbitration. What a waste of time. Abe Froman 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Abe, It would be great if you can make that comment on the Arbitration request. This think can still be killed off. Cheers. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of NIST and Peer Review

Moved to Talk:National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology#Discussion_of_NIST_and_Peer_Review, if I moved this debate to the wrong page, please be my guest and move it to the correct page. Travb (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

[edit] Incivility and personal attacks

  1. "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)
  2. "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.
  3. 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)
  4. "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)
  5. "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)
  6. "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)
  7. "(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?[12]--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 [13].--MONGO 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. "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
  9. "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)
  10. "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)
  11. "Yes. [Fred] 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
  12. 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)
    No, that list is empty. This list is the witless comments section. And you are correct, Fred's comments should be moved from the witless list here to some other section of observation. --Tbeatty 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. "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)

[edit] Moved from ANI

Moved my comments from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_mentioning_Occam.27s_Razor_a_threat.3F, as per suggestion by Tom:

I was invited to comment on this latest dispute. I can move these comments somewhere else if they are too long. (moved)

This whole edit war is becoming absurd. I have been following and contributing to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Seabhcan.

MONGO and Seabhcan have been arguing for weeks, if not months.

Seabhcan refuses to apologize to MONGO, and MONGO takes every flippant comment of Seabhcan's seriously.

Isn't there a rule that an admin should not boot users who they are personally involved with in an edit war?

I really don't understand MONGO's reaction. He knows that Seabhcan can't and won't hold his tongue, yet he continues to post on Seabhcans talk page, as SalvNaut wrote: "You are not writing this to provoke Seabhcan, are you?" User_talk:Seabhcan#Lumberjack.3F

On the otherhand, I really don't understand Seabhcan's reaction to MONGO posting on Seabhcan's talk page. Seabhcan knows that there is an open RfC against him Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan, yet he continues to post silly comments which only inflame the argument.

This entire ANI about Occam's Razor is absurd. Obviously SalvNaut is joking, as User:Tariqabjotu, User:Tango, User:Stephan Schulz wrote above.

Behavioral patterns

In European football (Soccer), Soccer players use histrionics (dramatic representation; theatricals; acting) when there is a call against them.

MONGO wants everyone to believe that SalvNaut's comments was a threat. But it is clear to everyone but MONGO that SalvNaut's comment was another ill advised comment.

There is a pattern here between these editors behavior. MONGO, Tbeatty and others "provoke Seabhcan" and Seabhcan and SalvNaut are stupid enough to oblige this provoking, with silly comments. When Seabhcan and SalvNaut say stupid comments, MONGO, Tbeatty and others cry fowl, in dramtic histrionics, harnassing wikipolicy in an attempt to punish these users.

In a typcial move, recently I strongly criticized Seabhcan. MONGO and User:Morton_devonshire then posted a response on my talk page warning me for this strong criticism of Seabhcan, taking one sentence completly out of context. User_talk:Travb/Archive_8#Not_a_Wiki_Vacation

SalvNaut, Seabhcan, MONGO, Tbeatty and others are all POV warriors, with strong ideologies, often using the word "truth" to explain their positions. IMHO, all of them use wikipolicy to push their POV. (I admit that at times I can be a POV warrior too.) The only difference between myself, MONGO, Tbeatty and SalvNaut, Seabhcan is that SalvNaut and Seabhcan are not as smart/cunning as MONGO, Tbeatty and others; and don't know how to hold their tongues.

MONGO wrote: "Personally, your alteration to this new username you are using is an obvious pun on Osama bin laden. It borders on a WP:POINT violation."

Another behavioral pattern is the use of wikipolicy. This is not the first time that I have seen MONGO and others quote wikipolicy completly out of context. It seems that the strategy is that if they quote enough policy, no matter how dubious, eventually one will stick.

A casual look at WP:POINT will show that a users name does not disrupt wikipedia.

This accusation is just as bizarre and laughable as MONGO's threat to ban SalvNaut for "suggesting bodily harm", which led to this ANI. But unfortunatly it is very common.

MONGO wrote: "Admin Seabhcan was blocked for making a personal attack on an editor just yesterday[14]..."

Yet another behavioral pattern is for MONGO to bring up other users edit history, in an attempt to use their edit history as a Scarlet letter. Although it is okay for MONGO to personally bring up other users edit history, MONGO gets very angry if a user brings up his own.

In the past when I have brought up MONGO's own edit history he got very angry:

"If you find my edits so problematic, then let's just go straight to arbcom...just you and me...we can dance there all you like...I'm tiring of the falsehoods you are coming up with...so if you want to go straight to arbitration, then let's go." User_talk:Travb/Archive_8#I.27ll_just_redirect_here
"Are you serious....are you so blind to your editing and edit summaries that you fail to understand that you did nothing but attack me and even an arbcom member?..A supporter of a troll. I'm done talking with you...either an Rfc or I'll take this issue to arbcom." User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#Trolling_and_harassment

Suggestions

  1. I think that Seabhcan should sincerly apologize to MONGO and stop saying stupid things to MONGO and others, such as calling others a "cabal". This voluntary apology should be unilateral. (i.e. Seabhcan should apologize even if MONGO does not). User_talk:Seabhcan#The_cabal_accusation
  2. MONGO, Tbeatty and others should voluntary commit to stop posting on each others wikipages. I have voluntarily committed to doing this with another wikiuser, and it has helped immensely.
  3. Seabhcan's RfC, opened by Tom Harrison, should be closed. Either drop the RfC, or move to formal proceedings against Seabhcan. I think we all agree that the RfC has failed. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#This_RFC_has_failed
  4. Seabhcan, MONGO and others should commit voluntarily for one month not to edit the articles they have been arguing on. This voluntary ban should also be unilateral. As User:Thatcher131 suggested, I currently am not voting on any AfDs or editing the Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America for one month (until November 30th) even though the other wikiuser did not.
  5. MONGO and Seabhcan should not boot other users they are in edit wars with.
  6. Seabhcan should voluntarily promise not to edit protected pages he is an active editor on, such as Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America This voluntary action should also be unilateral.
  7. There should be a RfC open about Operation Gladio, which is the foundation of much of the debate.
  8. Users should voluntarily decide rules of behavior on these controversial pages. We are all adults, why do we have to have third parties decide what we should do? Can't we work this out ourselves, without outside adult supervision? This was suggested here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#This_RFC_has_failed

Again, I can move these comments somewhere else if they are too long. (Moved already) Travb (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, I opened the RfC on Seabhcan. Tom Harrison Talk 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Tom, sorry I wasn't clear, let me know how I can rewrite this to make this clear. Travb (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I do not think the RfC has failed. It may or may not get Seabhcan to stop calling names and insulting people, but only time will tell. Most of this discussion should probably be on the RfC's talk page, and I don't plan to comment more here. Tom Harrison Talk 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Lots of allegations there.--MONGO 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] involved parties should get their act together or move on to RfAr

Seabhcan doesn't look good on this RfC. Nor do his opponents. Admins are involved on both sides here, for chrissake, and we should expect of admins that they are able to overcome their personal grudges for the good of the project and shake hands with gritted teeth. If they cannot do this, they should submit to an arbitration ruling, but it will not do to have their animosities re-erupt over nonsense like the "Occam's razor" thing above. dab (ᛏ) 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been moved...Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan--MONGO 12:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd take a look over here at the village pump if you're trying to understand how admins could have so many problems. I mean to occupy this much time over "occam's razor" is just such an obvious distraction.. --Cplot 08:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Note, this case has moved to arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please don't add any more comments here, but you may wish to add evidence in the arbitration case. Thatcher131 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Seabhcan_feaa.html"