Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Cplot

Evidence presented by User:Travb as of this posting is in regards to edits made by a Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has been blocked twice for 3RR and now for a week for disruption. Cplot was going around adding a nonexistant category ([[Category: USEBACA]]) to talkpages, was questioned about it here and after I blocked him for a week when he again added the category in one of his edits, I posted my block for review at AN/I and was unanimously supported. So, indeed, I am glad to help keep just another troll who is here for disruption out of Wikipedia.--MONGO 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So what do you think of this policy: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. And why did you break it?
Do you think this is a good question for Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements/Questions_for_MONGO? Travb (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not really sure why you would pick cplot of all people to stand up for, perhaps you consider them a buddy much like I considered rex, however you are really not presenting a good appearance. Cplot, if you view that talk page, engaged in more then just an edit war, they laid accusations against everyone, believed the Federal Agents were in control of the article in a paid manner to "hide the truth" of what really happened. He stated nasty things such as what I posted in my evidence section of Federal agents "rapnig babies" in their spare time etc. He then when given a short block for all this, goes and creates sockpuppets and still edits the article and the talk page, laying down even more accusations against people and telling admins he will not be blocked and cannot be blocked. Of all people Travb I am kind of surprised that cplot would become your goto situation for evidence of wrong doing, especially with the majority of admins on AN/I supporting Mongo because of that disruption. --NuclearZer0 16:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Travis, do you really want to support such edits as these [1] [2] [3] Thatcher131 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Has it been established that 68.30.213.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is Cplot? I have watched the checkuser page on Cplot, and there is no confirmation that it is him.
I agree 100% that if indeed Cplot wrote those messages, he should be banned. That said, lets keep in mind what drove him to this. He is a new user, with less than 1500 edits, who was banned by MONGO, in clear violation of wikipolicy. Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used Notice how MONGO still hasn't answered the question?
As a new user on wikipedia in October 2005, if I would have gone up against MONGO, I would have been banned indefinetly too.
In fact if MONGO would have tangled with an admin like himself when he first started editing, he would have been indefinetly too. His Jan 2005 edits are full of WP:NPA violations.
MONGO did not follow WP:BITE. What happens when new users come up against experienced editors who WP:BITE, they often break a lot of rules. I know I did, and I was booted for it, and I learned from my mistakes. If Cplot is in fact those sockpuppets, which to my knowledge no one has established yet, Cplot should be banned. He has crossed the line. I still think indefinetly banning him is harsh, unless he continues.
That said, this does not excuse MONGOs violation of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used or WP:BITE.
MONGO clearly broke wikirules first.
As I established clearly on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#Example_1 MONGO violated both policies. I will look into the full edit history to find out when exactly MONGO started calling Cplot a troll. From my own personal experience, and those of several on this ArbCom, MONGO violates WP:NPA quite liberally.Travb (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
He had over 500 edits and has been editing Since May 30, 2006. Thats 6 months before his ban, which is just 1 month less then I have been editing Wikipedia. I wouldnt call this a new user, so I wouldnt consider this a case for WP:BITE to be applied. Its pretty much been settled that those are cplot or his meatpuppets other computers he has access to, possibly friends as they all share a geographic location/ISP. --NuclearZer0 17:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) have been asked to comment on cplot. I have many key issues which I would like to present. However I fail to see the relevance of this arbitration and my evidence/observations regarding cplot and his block. Why do you think cplot's case should be included here? Why is cplot's situation so closelly related to sebhcan's arbitration? --CyclePat 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Travb introduced it as evidence of Mongo behaving wrongly. That is why its an issue right here and appears on the evidence page. --NuclearZer0 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Cplot came into the case (which is becoming Seabhcan et al. vs. MONGO et al.) because Mongo's block of Cplot was alleged to be an abuse of administrative authority. If you think you have evidence that addresses this point, you can make a section of the main evidence page. (Or other evidence in opposition to or defense of the participants in this case.) This case will not address other issues involving Cplot, whatever they might be. Thatcher131 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Thatcher, I couldn't say it better myself.
Cplot was involved with the same pages as MONGO and Seabhcan. User:CyclePat, if you feel that MONGO abused his administrative authority, I welcome your comments here.
In the first case against Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO although MONGO was originally the focus of the investigation, brought by other users, two users were booted indefinently. So as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO case shows clearly, other people can be sanctioned and booted even though the arbitration doesn't have their name on the wiki link page.Travb (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are there exceptions to AGF?

(This has turned into a bit of an essay. Sorry.)

In Mongo's explanation of his treatment of me, I get the sense that he is suggesting that there are exceptions to the principle of assuming good faith. It looks as though his "skeptical" approach of "always questioning information that is not mainstream" implies not assuming good faith unless mainstream views are being presented.

Leaving aside the question of whether the specific edits I proposed can be reasonably taken as "promotional of expanding the discussion related to alternative theories regarding the collapse of the World trade Center" rather than indicative of a desire to make an article more informative, my question is whether even a clear indication that an editor believes that, say, a conspiracy theory belongs in an, at present, wholly mainstream article would license the suspension of principles like WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BITE or WP:CIVIL. A more reasonable approach, I would think, would be to approach such edits, at least at first pass, as honest errors, i.e., mistakes in judgment. (In practice, this would mean reverting them and providing a detailed explanation: in many cases this explanation could be reused, costing no typing time.)

Now, Mongo goes on to say that his were not the only "guarded" responses to my suggestions. In fact, I would say Mongo's introductory salvo was "barbed", and I mean this in a very specific way that User:Toiyabe brought to my attention: "I think a lot of people are waiting to see if you crack under pressure and say something nutty." [4] In this case, Mongo was even handing me something sufficienty nutty to say [5] -- all I had to do was take the bait. What Mongo was doing was trying to gauge my motives: and that, I think, is the opposite of assuming they are upright and decent. He was approaching me with what he calls "skepticism".

Also, I am struck (and have heard this from Mongo before) by the idea that he "accomodated" me and carried out edits "for me", as if civility is about doing favours for each other. I naturally assumed that requesting a proper edit, well on the side of caution, in a locked BLP would be accepted. Mongo's approach to WP is, shall we say, "personal". He takes things personally and he engages with edits by way of the persons making them. (The idea that I "had my way" with an article reflects a similar attitude: it presumes that I am here to build up my ego, rather than to learn and teach.)

As he notes, I've talked at length with Mongo about this on several occasions, but to no avail. I am, of course, still new enough to perhaps have misunderstood the "community spirit" of this thing. My point, however, is this: given Mongo's personal and skeptical editing style is Seabhcan really doing anything wrong? Is he not just engaging with the lovable monster of a persona that Mongo has constructed for himself for the purpose of editing and administering the Wikipedia? After all, Tom Harrison has been more than right to say that I am "in a better position to judge Mongo's behavior" with some experiences now behind me. The trouble is that I was more or less ready to take Seabhcan's playful ribbing approach, i.e., to see Mongo's terse rebukes as good natured jabs for a higher purpose. And, yes, to begin to hit back a little. You know, get in the spirit of things.

But then this arbitration comes up and the fun is over. So I ask again, wouldn't it be better just not to suspend NPA, and not to take things personally? Wouldn't it be better to actually assume good faith in these cases and accept the results of that "civilization", even if this comes at the cost of introducing a few more notions from beyond the mainstream so revered by "skeptics"?

WP may make the internet not suck. But this thing, I'm afraid, makes WP suck a bit more than it needs to.

Best, --Thomas Basboll 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you may feel I have disrespect for you edits. I can tell yu are well educated, as am I, so from my perspective, when I see evidence that anyone wants more inclusion of what is oft-times referred to as "conspiracy theories", my natural response is skepticism. My initial opinion of your efforts were that your intention were to increase the coverage of conspiracy theories,perhaps only as a way to discredit them, but I saw them as allowing them too much credit. I can definitely see how from your persepctive that you felt bitten by my dismissive responses. I assure you, had yur efforts on the Collapse of the WTC article been along the lines I had originally thought they were going to be, myself and others would have reverted your work...as Tom harrison mentioned, you were able and we trusted you to do a good job on what was a very contencious article..you endured very little reversion of your work and little has changed since you comleted yur rewrite....it's not a matter of "us" giving "you" our "permission" to do the changes...but you must take into context that fact that you were left to freely edit a difficult article with very little badgering from editors who may have originally suspected that you were "just another POV pusher". I have also been mostly supportive of your edits on the Steven E, Jones article...to be fair, aside from the debate when I tried to get the hypothesis of controlled demo on the WTC article deleted, I really can't see how you should feel that I have been an obstacle to your efforts.--MONGO 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Right now the obstacle is that I have to spend my time ensuring that the very person who makes WP unsuck enough to tolerate your rudeness doesn't suffer adminstrative reprisals for looking you in the eye. Sorry Mongo, right now you are making WP suck.--Thomas Basboll 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Seabhcan isn't just rude to me...he's rude to everyone that disagrees with him. I am amazed that you find that I am rude. Rude would have been to revert your every change...track you down on the other articles and revert you there. I think what you want is ownership of articles...again, you had very little interference from myself and others while you worked on the Collapse article...you don't think that is evidence that I agreed with your work? What a massive loss of AGF on your part.--MONGO 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the thing I find so baffling. I made a series of improvements to an article. (Each of them was an improvement. The handful that weren't were, quite properly, reverted.) I was, you are quite right, not badgered? But what does that tell us? Only that you exercised (belatedly) restraint in dealing with an editor about whom you did not AGF. My point is that, until you started making it sound like a favour, I assumed only that you agreed with my work. Like many others who deal with you must feel like telling you, I don't want ownership, I want to be left alone ... to do good work. All Seabhcan did, in his way (which is very much your way), was to say, in effect, "Hey Mongo, chill out. Leave the newbie alone. If you have helpful suggestions make them. If you don't want to be bothered, that's fine, but don't put words you think are crazy in his mouth!" You took that personally.--Thomas Basboll 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If that had been all Seabhcan had said, we would not be here. Tom Harrison Talk 16:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, because then it would be an isolated incident. But my hunch (after looking at some of the evidence) is that most of the other things he said have been said under similar conditions. That is, if most of the examples turn out to be examples of the kind I am discussing here, then, with the exception of a few regrettable outbursts (everyone has a bad day), Seabhcan's pattern of behaviour is just that of good natured engagement with a group editors who are not very nice to a particular "kind" of editor (scare quotes to indicate the sense of "we don't like his kind around here", where the tragedy is always in the all too quick identification of someone who, by that very act of identification, becomes fair game.) But I'm curious to know whether you think that Seabhcan's actions, in this case, were actually OK.--Thomas Basboll 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Having done the request for comment, I think I made my position clear there, where Seabhcan had every opportunity to back away from language like "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists". He stood by his remarks. I'll present evidence if it is needed, but I'm content to let the arbitrators judge his actions, in this instance and others. Tom Harrison Talk 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Thomas, do you have a link for whatever it was that MONGO did to you that you find objectionable? If your complaint was that MONGO was sceptical about your edits, I don't see the problem. WP:AGF doesn't require editors to assume that edits deserve to stay in the encyclopedia, only that editors assume the edits were made in good faith. (Instead, WP:V pretty much requires editors to be sceptical about unsupported edits.) If MONGO was initially suspicious that your edits were unsupported, POV, or just mistaken, that's not a violation of good faith, IMHO. TheronJ 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's the relevant exchange.[6] This isn't about the quality of the edits (though the information is more or less in the article now). Keep in mind that I have made no edits to the article at this point. That is, I am submitting drafts to the talk pages for comment and advice. This is an opportunity for Mongo to explain WP:V or POV to a newbie, if that's the concern he wants to raise; he chooses instead to bite me with those policies. Also, this isn't really about what happened to me. It's about whether Seabhcan's intervention on my behalf is justified. I think it is. It felt good at the time for someone to say that Mongo's behaviour was not that of a reasonable Wikipedian.--Thomas Basboll 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Reading that exchange, my 2 cents is that (1) MONGO probably could have been a little more civil, but was well within reasonable bounds to oppose your edits; (2) the absolute *worst* thing MONGO did to you in that exchange was ask whether you supported the Controlled Demolition hypothesis; (3) Nothing MONGO said justified Seabhcan's venom, which was orders of magnitude less civil than anything that had gone before it; and (4) Seabhcan's comments could only serve to inflame, rather than defuse, the dispute. TheronJ 21:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this [7] is worse than ask me whether I supported the controlled demolition hypothesis. But Seabhcan understood that there wasn't really a dispute to inflame. There was a first-time Wikipedian to lose. Seabhcan's task, on behalf of the community, was to make Mongo's incivility tolerable long enough to have the dispute. Without him, my next move (instead of participating in the long series of improvements I'm proud to have been a part of) might very well have been to say, "OK, guys, see you around if you want to hang out with this jerk." Seabhcan's intervention was an act of community in room that must surely have been embarrassed (at least a little) by one of its own. All he was saying is: "We're not all like Mongo. Keep at it." I did.--Thomas Basboll 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing in that link you provide indicates I was doing anyting other than asking you a question. If Seabhcan was, as you state, commenting (though even that isn't really great), "We're not all like Mongo. Keep at it" and mot being anymore snide than that, we wouldn;t be here. Like I'm the only one who has had a complaint about Seabhcan. He's the one tossing around, well, look at the evidence as it's right there in the links. Sorry if you found me to be a "jerk"...I am usually more dismissive with those who indicate interest in expanding the CT rhetoric than I ever was with you. Seabhcan supported you since he agreed with your POV...had it been the other way around, he would have been just as obnoxious to you as he has been to a dozen other established editors.--MONGO 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, you have said many times that you were in fact being dismissive. To now say that you were just asking a question is a bit odd. Are you really trying to say that?--Thomas Basboll 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question re: Anti-Semitism

I can imagine why Seabhcan might call his enemies hired goons and facists, but why anti-semites? I couldn't follow the history closely enough to see when that term entered the debate. TheronJ 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan didn't call them anti-semites, although the wording of the sentence might seem to give that false impression. Seabhcan was commenting on the fact that Morty, et al, were posting "nonsense" that asserted Ganser was an "anti-semite". Thus, the sentence was meant to be read "[We are hearing] more [of that] anti-semitic nonsense [about Ganser] from Morty....".

Seabhcan clearly posted a poor choice of words, here, but it wasn't an assertion about Morty's views on Jews and Arabs. Stone put to sky 07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A simpler rewrite might be: "more anti-semitism nonsense".--Thomas Basboll 09:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeh. But i tend more often to err towards more words. ;-) Stone put to sky 06:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up Travb

Since we dont post on eachother talk I will drop this here, feel free to remove after you read it.

Per:[8]

The dif you provided [9] shows the information being moved from the Line 19 section to the section below around Line 479. If you look on the talk page scroll all the way down in the dif to the very bottom and you would see the section at the end of the page, so it wasnt removed, just moved to the bottom. It seems they top posted and Mongo moved it down to be in time order. Dif of Camper top posting [10] --NuclearZer0 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I stopped working on the Yellowstone National Park article because of continued efforts by that editor to try and turn it into a photo album. Two other editors have also been reluctant to work on it as well due to this. There is no policy that says a person has to keep anything on their talk page anyway.--MONGO 19:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank Zero. I will remove this
I do think the above is relevant to this ArbCom and is better here.
I wouldn't mind us talking on each others page again
Can we lift the voluntary ban? Travb (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CamperStrike

Note: User:CamperStrike has been indef blocked for utilizing sockpuppets to disrupt articles, and to evade blocks. Vsmith 14:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note about Luna Santin

I'm not really sure where to put this, but it seems out of place on the evidence page, so I'll put it here. Although he doesn't say so in my block log, you can see in my talk page history that the reason I was indefinitely blocked the second time was due to creating a sockpuppet with a mocking username. Well, Luna only unbanned me after I had already been unbanned for "trolling and harassment" or whatever. He only unbanned me after the checkuser results came back and said it wasn't me who made the username. In fact, he only unbanned because he was the first to reply in IRC. I'd been in there for about an hour, and I basically said something to the effect of "thanks everyone for all your help and suggestions, but I have one more favor to ask: now that the checkuser results came back, can someone unblock me?" Luna happened to be the first to reply. So his "supporting of harassment" and "unblocking without discussion" are really nothing to worry about. Milto LOL pia 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)