Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence

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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

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 [2], 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 [3] and regarding TS1234's block, Seabhcan remarked on TS1234's talk page [4]:

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"[5], "I think you need a holiday - or a psychiatrist."[6], "...or force their employers to hire a few more goons to edit"[7], "...Wikipedia seems to be dominated by a bunch of anti-free speach fascists"[8] 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"[9], "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"[10], "Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo!"[11], "To claim that Gladio is a hoax is laughable. I had assumed you were merely ignorant"[12], "Here's some more anti-semitic bilge from Monty"[13] with edit summary "Monty and TDC, brothers in antisemitism". More examples via comments and edit summaries can easily be found: [14], [15], [16], [17]. 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[18].

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"[19] (which he slightly altered after extensive discussion), "Mo-ty needs to learn to put his fanatical nationalism to one side when he edits"[20], "They are here to push their personal nationalistic bias. History, citation, reality, take a back seat to promotion of their personal myths."[21], "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" [22], "The problem is that Americans are uniquely defensive of what they think should be true, rather than what is true"[23], 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)"[24], "...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"[25]. This kind of commentary is not conducive to an international effort to write an encyclopedia.

Seabhcan has misused his admin tools

Seabhcan violated Wikipedia:Protection policy when he edited the article Operation Gladio several times in one 24 hour period, "rm Hoax banner. What idiot put that there?", [26], [27] and to avoid violating WP:3RR, on his next edit, he protected the page on his preferred version.[28], [29]. Seabhcan also edited the protected article Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, [30] and there was discussion regarding this issue[31]. 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[32].

Seabhcan has edit warred

Lately, Seabhcan has been blocked twice [33] 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[34], 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"[35] He then engaged me in discussions on the matter both on my talkpage[36] and at AN/I[37], 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. Seabhcan admitted to sending the emails.[38] 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) [39], [40], [41] 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.

Travb seeking revenge

During my recent arbcom case brought against me, rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (the editor that originally brought forth the case) was indefinitely blocked after reading a proposed remedy which specified he would be banned indefinitely and then proceeding to attack a number of editors. Immediately upon seeing that Rootology had been banned, Travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) proceeded to my arbcom case and demanded disciplinary action be brought against me, accused Fred Bauder of having a "first-mover advantage" [42] based on an article Travb cited. Travb then requested that Rootology be given a "watered down free pass" as I had supposedly be given[43], [44] even though Travb knew that Rootology had attacked a number of editors in his final edits before being blocked, and there was conclusive proof that Rootology had engaged in editing the encyclopedia dramatica website after repeatedly lying about it, and posting vicious attacks on a number of Wikipedians who have articles there, Travb still defended Rootology.[45], [46], [47]. Travb then went on to claim that he felt that Fred Bauder was biased since he thinks Fred and I are both conservatives[48], [49], [50]. After making accusations that Fred Bauder may not be an impartial arbitrator and that he had a "first-mover advantage", Travb then solicited help from Seabhcan.[51] and then returned to the arbcom case to be disruptive[52], was blocked (one of many blocks) and later apologized to Fred and myself after he had calmed down. I discussed his behavior here.

Since then, Travb has made a series of comments indicating he is on a witch hunt of sorts. "You have to be pretty cunning and intellegent to survive so long. Will these words come back to haunt me? Maybe"[53], "For a history of bad behavior, please refer to the several RfCs and history of uncivil behavior of Mongo" [54], (when in fact, there has only been one Rfc that was properly certified) Just recently, Travb has decided to aide a disrupter like Rootology, coming to defend User:Cplot an obvious trolling account doing nothing but being disruptive.[55], [56]...even though the block was asked for review by me and there were zero who questioned the block [57], except Travb. Perhaps in his haste to find fault in my actions, Travb seems to have overlooked the fact that another editor added [58] links to attack pages commenting, "For your reading pleasure" (links, including one to an attack article about me on encyclopedia dramatica) with "00" embedded in the links and the last comment to "Remove 00 from middle of urls Bon Voyage". I reverted that edit and then Cplot reverted me, at which time I indefinitely blocked Cplot. As clearly stated in the arbcom remedy [59] "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia...".

On November 27, 2006, I protected the article Steven E. Jones (history) on the third edit made by Cplot, the same disruptive editor mentioned above.[60] I protected that article on Cplots preferred version, not mine, to actually keep that editor from violating 3RR, an offense he had already been blocked for twice in the same week for edit warring on the September 11, 2001 attacks article. I could have reverted Cplot, probably forcing him into a another potential 3RR violation since he was edit warring with two other editors already. I hadn't even edited the article since November 10 and was not involved in the editing dispute in any way. As mentioned, I protected the article on an edit I disagreed with stating clearly "protected page to head off edit war"[61] and leaving a comment on the talk page that I had protected the page "due to a disagreement regarding WP:BLP"[62]. Travb's misrepresentation of my very fair protection of that article, in support of WP:BLP and in keeping with our protection policy is to be examined.

In The section Travb has regarding ettiquette, had he bothered to look at the diff he himself added, I didn't remove a comment, I simply moved it since it had been placed at the top of my usertalk, rather than at the bottom. In his haste to find fault, he assigns blame where there is none. Besides, anyone can remove any comment they want, and Travb routinely archives every comment made on his page, even warnings, immediately after seeing them.

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"[63]

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"[64] and was later told by User:Tom harrison, "Apparently new to Wikipedia, 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."[65]. 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 [66]. 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.

User:Stone put to sky mentions a number of edits from a 2005, much of it centered around disagreements I was having with User:JamesMLane, User:Kevin Baas, User:Commodore Sloat, User:Ryan Freisling, User:Tony Sidaway, User:Kizzle, User:Derex, User:Rama regarding the issues of whether George W. Bush used cocaine, and more importantly, whether he was a "dry drunk"...a term that is used by Alcoholics Anonymous to describe a former alcoholic who hasn't been properly treated to deal with the supposed after affects of going sober. There were a number of books written by people, two of which by practicing psychologists, that I saw as having an axe to grind. In terms of the two psychologists, I argued that neither had performed a proper psychological evaluation as their opinions on Bush's behavior were being drawn form observations made for "afar", and that they hadn't in fact done a standard face to face evaulation as one would expect from persons in their positions. One of the psychologists in fact was not a member of the American Psychological Association due partly to his books and commentary...they wouldn't accredit him. Since that heated period, JamesMLane and I tried to find a way to protect harassed and now departed User:Gator1, whose real life identity had been compromised by Amorrow/Brandt. Commodore Sloat has asked me to assist on articles including Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda[67]. Ryan Freisling and have a friendship these days and she was very supportive of me when I was dealing with the encyclopedia dratmatica (ED) issues. Tony Sidaway supported my adminship in November 2005[68] and he and I spent many an hour protecting each other from various trolling attempts, Tony also being very supportive of my episodes regarding ED. Derex and I have worked on some things together and he has asked me to chime in on various issues. Rama later supported my adminship as well, stating " I appreciate his handling of the talk page of George W. Bush; clearly one who survives in this environment will be comfortable in easier situations"[69]. Kizzle supported my adminship [70], and we have worked on some issues together since as well. I don't know what more proof one can need to demonstrate that I know how to build friendships and work collaborative with editors I may have had previous disputes with. For some odd reason, Stone put to sky seems to think I have some control over editors he has disagreements with on the Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America article, an article I have edited 4x on 11/21, twice on 11/13 and only a few more times dating back before August of 2006. I did once unprotect the article on 11/13 and the only other edit I did that day was to remove the protected page template. How I could be construed to be the ringleader of those that he has been in editing conflicts with on that article is beyond me.

Evidence presented by User:Travb

This represents only half of the most recent 1000 edits of MONGO, in the past ten 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. See also User:Stone_put_to_sky comments showing MONGOs incivility. I have researched 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".

MONGO has misused his admin tools

Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (You may be wrong!)

Example 1

Indefinite block based of new user (less than 1500 edits) who MONGO was in a dispute with, with no check user confirmation.

• 18:59, 21 November 2006, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Edit war between Cplot and MONGO on September 11, 2001 attacks, MONGO rerported Cplot for 3RR violation [71] Warning to Cplot [72]
• 09:26, 29 November 2006, User talk:Cplot, MONGO insisted that Cplot remove a nonexistent category on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Cplot did not, and so he banned him for one week. [73] stating "You have been nothing but disruptive and I have blocked you for one week"
• 09:34, 29 November 2006, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, MONGO posts a Block review request. [74]
• 06:03, 30 November 2006, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, MONGO, without a checkuser confirmation, MONGO blocks Cplot indefinetly.

[75]

I open this message below MONGOs:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_admin_abuse_which_needs_to_be_investigated

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot. Where Cplot's advocate User:CyclePat, and User:Durova both state that the block appears inappropriate. User:Tbeatty who initiated the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot is a frequent defender of User:MONGO and shares much of the same POV.

According to User:CBDunkerson, this is not the first time that MONGO has used his admin powers inappropriately, I quote:

This has been a problem once before when MONGO wanted to have an article call some people "conspiracy theorists", another user reverted that as not being neutral, and MONGO blocked them and threatened to reblock for a week if the user reverted him again. In that case there was not even a thin justification like this 'threat of violence with Occam's razor'... rather a direct statement that he would use his admin position to 'win' the content dispute. While the community largely gave him a pass (incorrectly IMO as that block threat was beyond the pale) there was a general agreement that he should refrain from admin actions/threats for disputes he is involved in. This current incident seems to be very much along the same lines. (From Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive149#Is_mentioning_Occam.27s_Razor_a_threat.3F )

My opinion: Cplot has been blackballed by MONGO, and when User:CyclePat and I defend Cplot, we are both attacked. (See MONGO's comments below to User:CyclePat)

Example 2

MONGO Threatens to ban a user he is in an edit dispute with

• 15:18, 26 November 2006, User talk:SalvNaut, Demand retraction of comment immediately

Retract the comment you mentioned or I will block you...not sure how long at this point. That artricle is a hotbed, so any allusion, no matter how vague, of personal injury has to given zero tolerance. No one is threatening you...you are being told how to act...either act civiliy, or find yourself blocked.[76][77]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive149#Is_mentioning_Occam.27s_Razor_a_threat.3F

As Seabhcan wrote: Admin User:MONGO just threatened to block User:SalvNaut indefinitely for playfully suggesting that User:Tbeatty misuse use of the logical principle Occam's razor may "cut something important."[78] Mongo left a note on SalvNaut's talk page warning against "suggesting bodily harm" and that he will block SalvNaut indefinitely." [79].

User:Tango[80] User:Amarkov, User:Stephan Schulz, User:Tariqabjotu, User:Samir_(The_Scope), User:Cyde, User:CBDunkerson all strongly disagreed with MONGO.

MONGO knows WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

• 20:22, 22 November 2006, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Seabhcan, to Seabhcan: 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. [81]

Wikipedia:Protection policy

Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.

• 08:46, 27 November 2006 Steven E Jones [82] [83][84][85][86] MONGO edits the page: [87][88][89] [90] Several dozen more on page history.
• 21:15, 27 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, Unprotect no amount of mediation or further discussion is going to result in anything other than further efforts by the conspiracy theory supporters to try and get their way here. We may as well unprotect the article and resume reporting them for 3RR as we have already done on 3 editors in the last week. [91]

MONGO has repeatedly violated our Civility and No personal attacks policies

WP:NPA violations

With Cplot

• 09:50, 29 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, Trolling removed[92]
• 09:49, 29 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, trolling remove...will start removing all trolling for no on [93] Also WP:BITE violation.
• 09:34, 29 November 2006, Wikipedia: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. [94]
• 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[95] 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.[96]
• 22:52, 28 November 2006, User talk:Cplot, Cplot...remove the vandalism category from that talkpage. The games are done.--[97]
• 20:37, 28 November 2006, User talk:MONGO "remove trolling" [98]
• 22:06, 30 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, In response about indefinitely banning Cplot when CyclePat questioned his indefinite block: "it looks as though you jumped the gun in a rude and spitfull manner to silence a POV you don't or didn't agree with. Think about it! With the up most respect and sincerelly, good luck with future debates on content dispute. --CyclePat", No way...after I blocked him for a week, he reposted the same nonexistant category in one of his edits on his usertalk. I know trolling when I see it and there isn't anything else to say on the matter, so kindly stop posting here about it.
• 20:28, 30 November 2006, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, About Cplot: "Travb, my, my, defending the actions of an obvious disrupter again?"[99]
• 22:16, 29 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, Cplot is nothing but disruptive...the category he was adding was disruptive and your commentary above is disruptive. (stating that criticism of him blocking Cplot is disruptive).

With Seabhcan

• 22:59, 30 November 2006, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence "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"

With Travb

• 22:06, 30 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, "Travb seeking revenge"[100] Revenge for what?
• 22:37, 29 November 2006, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence, "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"."

WP:AGF

September 11, 2001

• 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. [101]

With Cplot

• 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. [102]
• 20:02, 28 November 2006, User talk:Cplot, You're just disruptive, nothing more and I have done nothing "wrong" as you indicated [103]
• 14:05, 28 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, Please don't come to my talk page and misrepresent the facts of the case.[104]
• 21:10, 27 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, If anyone is being disruptive, it's most definitely you.[105]
• 21:01, 27 November 2006, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/NPOV-rewrite1, If you can't POV push conspiracy theory nonsense into regular article space, you don't go and try and work on a rewrite outside of that article. The conspiracy theories have an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories and there is a short summary of their nonsense and a link to that article from the main article. You're most definitely not in the majority.[106] (Cplot set up an alternative page for September 11, 2001, and MONGO put it up for deletion.)[107][108]

With Anon

• 20:20, 29 November 2006, User talk:MONGO cuase you're a troll, troll...and about to be blocked for triolling [109] (calling someone who defended Cplot a troll, threatening him with trolling.)

With CamperStrike

• 10:48, 27 November 2006, Talk:Yellowstone National Park, I realize he/she means well, but continued efforts to go around to articles and reduce the image sizes to accomdate high resolution setting for browsers is being disruptive. [110]

With Seabhcan

• 19:48, 26 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, the wording of those comments, along with Seabhcans editing efforts, indicate to me a bias [111]
• 18:37, 26 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, You changed the sig in the midsts of your Rfc...it looks to me like you did this as a provocation [112] Refering to Seabhcan changing his handle to: al Seabhcán bin Baloney
• 18:18, 26 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, I do believe you altered your username to appear like Osama bin laden's as an insult, deliberately designed to provoke. Whether you altered your username deliberately to provoke can'r be proven. [113]

WP:CIVIL

September 11, 2001 & 7 World Trade Center

• 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. [114]
• 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.[115]
• 12:32, 26 November 2006, 7 World Trade Center, ah, let's giver all the quotes, not just the ones that help the conspiracy theory...how 'bout that[116]
• 07:14, 25 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, The conspiracy theories are opinion based...we don't reference opinion based nonsense to accodate your POV....this has been disucussed with POV pushers of nonsense for years now and the conspiracy theorists have brought zero new evidence to the table to refute the known facts.[117] To User:Acebrock

With Cplot

• 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 [118][119]

With CamperStrike

• 12:20, 27 November 2006, User talk:CamperStrike, I deepy resent your comments (that are false) that I did a few spelling corrections. All you have added is images...that seems to be your facination. In some articles you reduce them to a point where they can hardly be seen, while in others...ie:Roosevelt Arch...the image is the entire page! You add text on rare occasions that is mostly unreferenced...so do whatever you want. [120] WP:CIVIL violations began over photos added to the Yellowstone page. See WP:OWN section.
• 12:03, 27 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, I started 2 featured articles adding the vast majority of the text to them. I completely re did two other articles that were a big mess and made them featured with assistance since this is a collaborative effort. All you give a crap about is the darn images...I am here to write articles. In some articles, you have been going around making the images huge, and in others reducing them to a point where they can't even be seen. You then copy and paste little morsels of text without a single reference and that is a copyvio. You can work with me or against me but you best stop coming to my userpage and going off. I cited three articles that are a part of the protected areas project and you don't seem to like those do you? Nevermind...you go ahead...create a copyvio mess and fillm the articles up with images of what you claim is evidence of a forest fire, when I see that half the image is of a road....that image looks simlpy lousy...I don't care how big it is...it is lousy image of a forest fire end result. [121]
• 11:07, 27 November 2006, Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas, don't waste your time...editor warrior has taken over the YNP article[122]
• 10:59, 27 November 2006, User talk:CamperStrike, Either work with me (and, by the way, I am not following you around...I edit the same articles you have been, and I have been editing them for some time now)...or expect to see your work reverted if you are going to continue to be disruptive.[123]

With Thomas Basboll

• 04:20, 27 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, Wow...that's about as outrageous a series of comments ever left here[124]
• 21:02, 26 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, I'm heading out, so don't expect a prompt reply, or any for that matter.[125]

With Travb

• 20:48, 26 November 2006, User:MONGO/a, Comment to myself...ignore all this as the rantings of Travb, or seek clarification via Rfc.[126]

Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings.

• 10:56, 27 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, [127]

MONGO wrote: In The section Travb has regarding ettiquette, had he bothered to look at the diff he himself added, I didn't remove a comment, I simply moved it since it had been placed at the top of my usertalk, rather than at the bottom. In his haste to find fault, he assigns blame where there is none. Besides, anyone can remove any comment they want, and Travb routinely archives every comment made on his page, even warnings, immediately after seeing them.

My response: Where is the moved comment? I will happily remove this if you provide the link. You still haven't explained why you violated WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. One mistake on edit history, hardly warrants ArbCom members to throw out the entire case against your behavior. Travb (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Tolerance of alternate views other than MONGO's own.

• 09:13, 28 November 2006, David Ray Griffin it is not an alternative theory...that is simply untrue...[128]
• 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. [129]
• 08:24, 28 November 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, There are no reliable sources that support a conspiracy theory of the events of 9/11. [130]
• 05:17, 28 November 2006, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), Besides, the little pet theories do have an article here...9/11 conspiracy theories...and their ripoff books and other spam advertising are listed at the bottom of that article. Buyer beware.
• 19:22, 27 November 2006, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for MONGO. I think that all efforts to ensure that conspiracy theory nonsense is minimized should be implemented to save wikipedia from looking like an unreliable source. Civility is paramount, but the integrity of the resource is more so. Those who are here to promote conspiracy theory nonsense over the known evidence should either find more productive ways of spending their time, or leave the project.[131]
• 08:58, 27 November 2006, Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, Change to 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes change article to comply with the facts...all the CT "hypothesises" and "theories" are hoaxes[132]

Please remember, the above only represents the past 10 days, less than 1000 edits of MONGO. As time permits, I will continue to add more.

Travb (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: #Travb seeking revenge

I ask MONGO, revenge for what?

MONGO and I have been in a long term dispute, we are pursuing due process to address the issue at hand, I am NOT doing this for revenge. When an editor's honest attempt at dispute resolution is recast as vengeance, then it is a sad day indeed for wikipedia. Editors who follow the dispute resolution process in good faith should not be accused of "seeking revenge".

To use liberally the words of User:Geogre in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop:

"I have used only the devastating power of argument. If that is an actionable offense, then we're all in deep, deep trouble."

"Since I was booted for less than 30 minutes for WP:NPA. Who have I called a "troll?" Who have I said is "disruptive?" What statements of mine that are clearly insulting have I defended as impossible to interpret insultingly? To draw any equivalence is abhorent. All I do is write articles, and, when I see bad ideas being endorsed and users pusing their own POV, I oppose them. MONGO, you're way, way, way over the line."

I have known MONGO since when I first became a wikieditor in October 2003, on the WSI page. I saw quickly that we had a complete opposite POV. Which is great. I have said several times, I think this is what makes wikipedia great.

But over time, I saw a pattern with MONGO's edit behavior, which many people here on this page, on MONGO's ArbCom and many of the ANIs will agree with: MONGO has zero tolerance for different views then his own. For ample evidence of this, please see: #Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

In addition, MONGO liberally and abusively uses his administrative powers and AfDs to threaten and remove views that do not support his own. For ample evidence of this, please see: #MONGO has misused his admin tools

After witnessing this behavior for months, in numerous edit wars and AfDs, I decided to make a comment on the AfD about this, directly about MONGO:

(comment)

JoshuaZ blocked me, I apologized in an email to JoshuaZ, and within less than 30 minutes JoshuaZ unblocked me. I then apologized to MONGO. I did violate WP:NPA and WP:Civil with MONGO on the AfD, because I brought up what wikipedians should not bring up: political bias of fellow wikipedians. And I have been very careful not to violate WP:NPA and WP:Civil, particularly among the group of people who support MONGO, who I have been "edit waring" with for the past 3 months.

Rootology and I had worked together before. User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#state_terror_mess

Rootology sent me a message that same day as I was blocked. User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#Hey stating that he was "done". Other users had emailed me about Rootology, distrubed about how Rootology's case was going. One admin told me in an e-mail that they were sorry they didn't do more to help Rootology. They were basically letting Rootology get the axe, and standing by and letting it happen. I thought this was appalling to allow someone to be indefinetly banned and simply stand by and watch.

I quickly read over the workshop against MONGO, and I realized that MONGO was getting a free pass for his own violations of wikipolicy, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop#Need_non-political_arbitrators.

I attempted triage, knowing the chances for Rootology this late in the game were slim. I wrote my opinion on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop defending Rootology, and criticizing MONGO's free pass. At the same time on his Rootology's user page, I started to delete the stupid WP:NPA violations by Rootology, and told him to stop committing suicide. I would post these comments, but all of Rootology's comments have been deleted.[133]

In response, MONGO called my edits "trolling" as he has done to countless other editors, and called an ANI.

User:MONGO wrote: "Immediately upon seeing that Rootology had been banned, Travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) proceeded to my arbcom case and demanded disciplinary action be brought against me"

This is clearly not the case User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#Hey, I have explained this to MONGO repeatedly the situation that led me to the Arbcom. I would appreciate it if MONGO would delete this blatantly false accusation.

Here is the full comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop, notice the sections MONGO leaves out?:

I just read this wonderful article on wikipedia today, I recommed it to anyone. New Yorker: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? Why do I bring this up? "Martin Wattenberg and Fernanda B. Viégas, two researchers at I.B.M. who have studied (wikipedia) said: "Wattenberg and Viégas have also identified a “first-mover advantage”: the initial contributor to an article often sets the tone" User:Fred Bauder has a “first-mover advantage” and is setting the tone of this arbitration. I would plead with others editors to take the initative and be independent in your assessment of this arbitration. At first glance, from someone who has never looked at this case, this appears to be a case of admins protecting their own, which is never really acknowleged, but happens frequently on wikipedia. Can I say this last sentence without being booted? If this is against some policy I am unaware of, please let me know and I will delete it immediatly. I am not accusing User:Fred Bauder of anything, when I say this, I mean the arbitration in general. I am just expressing my opinion. Travb (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MONGO wrote: "even though Travb knew that Rootology had attacked a number of editors in his final edits before being blocked, and there was conclusive proof that Rootology had engaged in editing the encyclopedia dramatica website after repeatedly lying about it, and posting vicious attacks on a number of Wikipedians who have articles there, Travb still defended Rootology."

Again in my comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop I wrote:

At first glance, from someone who has never looked at this case, this appears to be a case of admins protecting their own, which is never really acknowleged, but happens frequently on wikipedia. Can I say this last sentence without being booted? If this is against some policy I am unaware of, please let me know and I will delete it immediatly. I am not accusing User:Fred Bauder of anything, when I say this, I mean the arbitration in general. I am just expressing my opinion.

As I stated that same day: At first glance, from someone who has never looked at this case[134] I even stated somewhere that I was doing triage. (I will dig up the edit) I had very little familiarity with the case, but from a quick glance, I just felt like it was unfair that MONGO was getting a free pass, as it appears he will get one here, too.

MONGO, please don't use my association with Rootology as Scarlet letter, I repeatedly told Rootology to stop, any admin can check the deleted pages. I am sure you have associated with editors who later were banned, you maybe even defended those editors in dispute resolution. Again: When an editor's honest attempt at dispute resolution is recast as vengeance, then it is a sad day indeed for wikipedia. Editors who follow the dispute resolution process in good faith should not be accused of "seeking revenge".

In addition, I was hardly defending Rootology's bad beahvior. As I wrote to Rootology: "I can't remedy your bad behavior before, I can only suggest ways you can mediate the consequences of your poor decisions."[135] This is hardly me defending Rootlogy. Arbcoms, again please see the edit history of Rootlogy's page, which is now deleted.

MONGO wrote: "Travb then went on to claim that he felt that Fred Bauder was biased since he thinks Fred and I are both conservatives[136], [137], [138]"

I pointed this out to Fred:

Why is a lawyer[139] who has "This user has survived the worst of Stalinist Excess from Leftists."[140] on his page, determining what should be on this aritration page? MONGOs edits are conservative in nature, and rootology's are clearly liberal in nature. Where is rootology's admin liberal lawyer? Shouldn't a non-partisan wikiuser, who usually doesn't edit political wikipages determine what is in this arbitration? Again, if this statment is against wikipedia policy, please let me know.

My comments to Fred and MONGO on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop, nor did my subsiquent comments later to MONGO and Fred, did not violate any wikipedia policy that I am familar with. MONGO can state that I "attacked" Fred, but that is nothing more than his POV.

When Rootology committed suicide, despite my warnings, I apologized to Fred for accusing him of being a lawyer and a conservative. Both MONGO and Fred accepted my apologies. It was a valuable lesson I learned that day, thanks MONGO. Because of WP:NPA, wikiusers are not allowed to state what appears to be obvious. I understand why the policy exists, and I support it, and I thank MONGO and Fred for teaching me this.

While I deleted many of the comments about Fred's alleged conservatism and being a lawyer, I did keep the comments about MONGO getting a free pass on the Workshop page, because I still believe MONGO is getting a free pass, as he is in this ArbCom. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop#Need_non-political_arbitrators.

MONGO wrote: and then returned to the arbcom case to be disruptive[141]

This is a favorite accusation of MONGO, calling someone "disruptive", it is his favorite accusation right behind calling other editors trolls. As soon as I finish checking all of MONGOs edits for November 2006, I will add up all the times and all the people that MONGO has labeled "trolls" and "disruptive".

Please read the full conversation here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop#Badlydrawnjeff MONGO had not done a checkuser at the time against Badlydrawnjeff, but he was making a lot of accusations against Badlydrawnjeff. This is familar to #Example_1 above, when he blocked Cplot indefinetly before the checkuser was complete. MONGO refused to answer questions I possed to him, when I persisted he called an ANI and began calling my names on my user page, in violation of WP:NPA.

(more later)

Signed: Travb (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User: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)

Comments of Morton's Sebhcanquotes

Well you've seen some of my favorite Mongoquotes, some of them rather witty (some not), and now Morton also presented Sebhcanquotes, which are also rather amusing and humorous… or not. imo there is nothing that much outrageous in all this, certainly some reflections are a bit poisonous, but if I've noticed anything while here, then it would be passion of some discussions… Since I can easily understand some of well chosen Sebhcan's replies I'll repeat my opinion once again… hard drawn lines and do not cross that Rubicon! warnings are usual for MONGO. It certainly isn’t OK to play fool with newcomers, or use administrative privileges to enforce "order" of facts. If such allegations against Sebhcan even exist, they certainly shouldn’t be addressed by MONGO;)… It also occurred to me that I mighty be biased due to nature of my MONGO experience, but I'll let you folks be the judge of that…

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.[142]

• MONGO deleted that talk page edit and called it "trolling."[143], [144] (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)

Seabhcan is unrepentant and sees Wikipedia as a battleground

I am most troubled by the fact that Seabhcan apparently believes that his personal attacks, incivility, and misuse of admin tools are justified by whatever prior conduct he accuses MONGO, Morton, et al., of., and that Seabhcan refuses to refrain from future incivility unless the other editors agree to some kind of in-kind exchange.

• Seabhcan stands behind his decision to refer to opposing editors as "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists," arguing truth.
• Regarding a request that he agree to refrain from future incivility and misuse of admin tools, Seabhcan writes: "You can't expect me to unliterary disarm. There needs to be reform on both sides".
• Seabhcan refuses an attempt by MONGO to de-escalate, and refuses to refrain from incivility unless "Morty, Tbeaty, TDC . . . agree to decommission their disruptive editing behaviour"
• See also [145], [146]

Evidence presented by User:Stone put to sky

MONGO is an out of control POV pusher

MONGO considers many things which are simply objective statements to be "anti-american" and I, as a patriotic U.S. citizen, am deeply offended by his abuse of the term, by his abuse of his power as an administrator when qualifying that statement, and by his insistence that because he is an American he somehow has an exclusive and privileged right to interpret and analyze all statements made about the U.S.A. by people of other nationalities.

Moreover, he also wrongly considers *any* publication of viewpoints contrary to his own to be "anti-american" and "POV-pushing". Witness this, from an exchange of his back in mid-2005:

I fail to see how the slander that constitutes the George Bush article is anything other than the political persuasion of the far left and fail to see how the incorporation of so much inuendo and heresay makes for good reporting. Perhaps it is the likes of your political persuasion that won't allow you to edit the article with a NPOV, not mine. As I mentioned, I consider this an impossible impasse.

[147]

Now, please keep in mind that this is all in response to a widely publicized book by a responsible researcher. Despite the fact that this book clearly meets WP:RS, in this thread MONGO utterly ignores all entreaties to simply accept that the book meets basic standards of bibliographic reliability and instead repeatedly assails his opponents with personal attacks. All of these phrases stink of entrenched, obstinate POV-pushing; these are just a few samples of phrases and attitudes on this thread:

• this article reeks of leftist redundancy and I am not going to detail it for you
• This article is a worthless rag and the only place it is acceptable is here. I'm not going to discuss it any further and you can say whatever you wish as my opinion is different which means that since it is in opposition to yours, we are at an impasse.
• I find CBS news to be leftist. I consider all of Hollywood to be leftist....I do not fear these people, but in fact, I think they are extremists.
• PosterA: I'd recommend you visit Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot....I hope you can separate yourself from your political persuasion and actually contribute constructively.
• MONGO's response to above: I feel that the warnings and etc. I have gotten such as this from you are rude as I don't remember going into your talk page and handing out advice on courtesy....it is the likes of your political persuasion that won't allow you to edit the article with a NPOV, not mine....I consider this an impossible impasse.
• In my eyes, the article is written with a bias and that bais is left wing.
• You assume that our leaders, in that our current administration is guided by a feeling of revenge, oil and simplistic things as such which are easy to point at, when the rational for invading Iraq are much more complex.
• Why is it liberals are so quick to talk about rights and freedoms and liberties, yet fail to understand that not in all cases can these issues be resolved with diplomacy.
• You have no idea how ignorant you are. Maybe in 10 years you'll be able to formulate an intelligent argument without all the philosophical hype. The real world is a different place and you have no idea how close we are to armafuckengeddon.
• You don't know what I know...what do you think I do for a living?
• So they wouldn't lose credibility, the intelligence community back pedalled on their previous view that WMD's were in Iraq in order to be politically correct. I know this to be a fact....you don't so consider this to be enlightening...not that you'll accept it because it doesn't fit into your narrow definition of reality.

All of this from *one* discussion page! [148]

Check out that last statement: MONGO is asserting that he has privileged, absolutely unsourced information that flies in the face of all available evidence; from here -- and on that basis -- he goes on to assert that the interlocutor is "ignorant" and "unenlightened" and "narrow" because he doesn't accept MONGO's assertion at face value -- and then he has the gall to plead that he "doesn't want to sound rude"!!

I have seen nothing that suggests MONGO has changed his strongly POV-centric idea of what is "valid" and what isn't. Since mid-2005, MONGO has become a very shrewd editor and much less direct in his efforts to sway Wikipedia content, but there is nothing to suggest that he has any real understanding of what this place is meant to become. From MONGO's standpoint -- as this one exchange makes perfectly clear -- Wikipedia entries should by all rights be brought into accord with his own world view before they can be considered commendable.

Unfortunately, most of the world -- indeed, most of the United States, even -- don't share many of MONGO's unsubstantiated, unfounded, and in many cases unjustifiable opinions.

Now, we see that MONGO himself admits that *even* *now*, in November 2006, he abuses his status as an administrator to force the rhetorical direction of articles more to his liking. Witness:

• ...explain to the admin coming in why you think you should be unblocked. If unblocked and you revert me one more time, I'm going to block you for a week.[149]
• Expect to see me blocking the trolls such as Truthseeker and others on very little provocation...I just blocked User:Pokipsy76 for 48 hours since he routinely reverts me everytime I edit the 9/11 articles.[150]

And there is plenty more evidence of this sort of abuse. Even now, MONGO clearly uses his status as an administrator to target individuals he disagrees with; this is made clear in the user page archive of the contributor DickClarkMises[151]. Witness:

• (from MONGO's own user page) Will Beback: MONGO, I respect your contributions to the project, but I have to disagree with your efforts against user:DickClarkMises's mention of his political campaign. Many other admins have pointed out that this...is quite common and not clearly prohibited. If the policy needs to be changed then let's do so....your conduct appears to be targeted at the individual rather than his behavior, perhaps because of what you perceive to be his political beliefs or interests....-Will Beback [152]

There are several other editors and administrators who came to DCM's defense on this; the link in question simply pointed out that he was running for office, and nothing more. As DCM pointed out, it was simply an indication of who he was and what he did, and in no way intended as a personal advertisement. Rather, it was only an indication of his specialties and potential biases. After several editors come to DCM's defense, MONGO chimed in with this:

• (on DCMise's page) MONGO: [to DCM]...you, after telling me that I was making personal attacks, then labeled all of them as "crazy". How obtuse can you be.

Besides the fact that this's clearly a personal insult aimed at an editor over activity on another page, the above petulance over the use of the word "crazy" is immediately followed with this:

• I mean really...the gaul of advertising and linking us to your politcal efforts by way of Wikipedia. As an established editor, you certainly should know better.

Could the insinuation be any clearer?

There is considerably more on the page, as well; all of these are by MONGO:

Regarding Morgan Reynolds, a political commentator / economist:

• Least I know from you [DickClarkMises] linking Morgan Reynolds where you [DCM] stand. Thanks! It would be best if you [DCM] removed (at the least) links to your political efforts from your userpage.

And witness this exchange lower down on the page:

• [User:Georgewilliamherbert] I don't disagree at all that Striver's little stunt here is WP:POINT, however, I grossly disagree with your assertion that Haney's not notable. Haney's account of life inside Delta Force is required reading for any serious scholar of special operations forces. Please reconsider your vote. I'm going to go chastise Striver for the stunt, but the article should stay. Had I realized Haney didn't already have a WP article I would have created one. Georgewilliamherbert 05:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Then vote your choice, but don't badger me here about whether you agree with my vote or not..do so there, as loud as you want. The article is lousy (as one would expect) from the originator. I also am not sure your policeman tone is the best in my usertalk...you're not a mediator, not an arbitrator, not an admin, and not really all that experienced, so i don't think you have any right to lecture me about a vote I made or to go to Strivers page and admonish him...you should concentrate on you.--MONGO 05:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a myriad of these examples out there, no doubt nearly as many that have been self-deleted, and there are certain to be many more with each passing day. Many are veiled threats; some (as in the case of DCM) are veiled and clearly personal in nature, as well; thus, with these few samples -- taken from two years back up to now -- we can see:

MONGO has clearly stated that in the cases where he disagrees with widely accepted news organizations, well-sourced published books, and widely respected authorities or commentators that he believes these sources to be "POV" and unsuitable for Wikipedia.

From his recorded behavior on many pages, it is more than obvious that he manipulates Wiki-policy to suit his personal political agenda, even to the point where he must be forced by the community at large to heel himself under the accepted consensus.

And he has openly admitted that, at least in some cases, he utilizes the banning procedure to eliminate the influence of other editors who take issue with his editing choices.

The question i want to ask is simple:

Why on earth does this person have administrative privileges?

Granted, he has contributed a lot of good material, and i respect that he has worked hard to clean up conspiracy indulgences on Wikipedia. However, these are editing skills; as an administrator, it is more than evident that MONGO indulges people and opinions with whom he agrees while abuses his privileges in order to exact penalties against those people or opinions he opposes. Obviously, good editing skills don't translate to good admin skills, and it is my considered opinion -- after witnessing MONGO's behavior on various Wikipedia pages -- that his administratorship be revoked.

These attacks against Seabhcan are clearly more of the same, and i consider them utterly contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia community. They are indeed beyond the pale, and clearly Seabhcan has been targetted because of his advocacy for page content that MONGO considers "leftist", "liberal", "extremist", or "anti-american" -- which, from what i can tell, apparently means anything that comes from Hollywood, CBS, authors, directors, journalists or musicians with which MONGO disagrees, the UN, the International Court, anyone who served in the Clinton administration, anyone who criticizes George Bush (or thinks that he's a drunk, or thinks that he did cocaine), anyone who doesn't believe that Iraq had any WMD's, any European or Asian who doesn't support the U.S.' invasion of Iraq...or any one of a number of other things that are equally mainstream. Stone put to sky 13:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Evidence" presented by Morty

Largely Nonsense

These complaints against Seabhcan are largely made of cotton-candy; apparently, Morty thinks that by presenting us with a long list people will be intimidated and back away from dismissing the accusations as the tripe most of them actually are. The real complaints here go back to a fundamental difference between the methods of contribution favored by Seabhcan and those of MONGO:

• Seabhcan seeks to persuade people and urge them towards a consensus. In this endeavor, he uses wit, sarcasm, commentary and wry, often self-deprecating humor. Sometimes his use of language goes moves outside the bounds of civility, but rarely and always after much patience and frustration with repeated violations of Wikipedia guidelines. Seabhcan himself rarely cites these guidelines as hard-written rules or laws but instead tacitly comments with everyday language on their applicability and significance. More importantly, Seabhcan's words never devolve into administratrive threats, taunts or abuse, and Seabhcan has shown himself remarkably unwilling to utilize the AN/I, RfC, or banning processes, even against editors he himself continues to exhibit destructive and widely condemnable behavior.

• In contrast, MONGO has shown that he is very happy in applying the banning procedure, and quite willing to use it to silence editors with whom he disagrees. He often resents any and all humor as equivalent to incivility or taunting and uses these occasions to initiate what are obviously capricious and arbitrary RfC's and AN/I's. MONGO constantly cites the Wikipedia guidelines as legalistic dogma, even attempting to enforce them after it has become clear that his interpretation does not emulate the greater consensus. In those cases where MONGO cites the guidelines, he perceives his foremost responsibility as one of policing content, and not of building consensus. Ultimately, his actions have consistently and repeatedly devolved into threats to ban, revert, and eliminate any material he considers "POV" -- and he has gone on record as saying that for him, POV is equivalent to CBS, Hollywood, "liberal" and "left wing" commentary of any sort, that it also includes any commentary about the United States made by people who don't share its citizenship, and through his behavior has made it abundantly clear that it even includes any academic research or commentary with which he disagrees.

I really think this is a simple call to make. Which administrator would you rather have disagreeing with you? And isn't there one who represents every quality you'd consider abusive and unfair? Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Point-by-Point

• "I don't know but I'm open to suggestions! Really, there are only 5-10 of these problem editors. However, they seem to have an extraordinary amount of time to devote to their trolling. We honest editors have real lives to live. If we had a solid group of about 20-30 editors willing to cover wikipedia in shifts and to shout down this POV-pushing then we could balance them (or force their employers to hire a few more goons to edit)"17:34, 18 November 2006

This is not a personal insult! This is clearly a statement made in the context of a discussion between several like-minded ediors about which direction the page should be taken, and decrying the non-compliance of certain editors with WP:NPOV, WP:Harassment, WP:Destructive Edits, WP:Soapbox, etc. Stone put to sky 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "You can try, and you may win some battles. The problem is that this group of editors will wait like vultures until you or others lose interest and move on. Then they'll go to work again stripping away material that they don't want others to see."16:27, 18 November 2006

Again, this is not a personal insult; it is a comment similar to the above, on the willingness of a few editors to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:Not a Soapbox.Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "I agree. Thanks for your support. Mo-ty needs to learn to put his fanatical nationalism to one side when he edits."21:45, 17 November 2006

"Mo-ty" could just as easily be written "Mo'ty", or "Moh'ty"; it's a contraction of a common British pronunciation, and of innocuous intent nor by any means defamatory or uncivil. The rest is commentary referencing any or all of WP:NPOV, WP:Disruptive Editing, and WP:Not a Soapbox. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "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

Comments on repeated evidence that said editors do not abide by WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:Not a Soapbox and "not your personal page". In no way a personal attack. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "On wikibreak - sick of talking to dumb people of certain nations who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history."20:08, 31 October 2006 - Removed after extensive discussion.

"Dumb" is out of line; the rest is a direct reference to behavior that can be easily classified under any or all of WP:NPOV, WP:Disruptive Editing, WP:soapbox or WP:RS, take your pick. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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"

Insult? You've got to be kidding. A direct reference to WP:RS and WP:REF couched in witty hyperbole. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "I think we've reached the same old impass again. Mongo doesn't want anything changed, Tom is afraid of changing anything and MMX1 (which stands for "Mini-Me of Mongo X1") will chime in any moment now with a WP:NPA warning."14:30, 21 July 2006

Again, commentary on WP:Disruptive Editing coupled w/mild wit, and a prescient comment about the likelihood of further WP:Harassment. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Eh, well, nobody bats a hundred. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "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

I laughed when i read this one. Couldn't care less who it's about, and at any rate it's merely a witty, metaphorical paraphrase of WP:Not a Soap-box, WP:Disruptive Editing, WP:"Not your personal page" and WP:NPOV.Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Ha ha. Mongo - I don't doubt that you 'spread lies', as you put it, in your spare time."11:13, 20 July 2006

Perhaps mildly out of line, but it mainly turns MOGNO's words against MOGNO himself. The fact that the phrase uses a direct quote from MONGO himself seems to invalidate any suggestion that this is abuse or incivilty. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Thanks for the pep talk Guinnog, but I'm too fed up with this wanker [referring to MONGO] to work on the 9/11 stuff anymore."18:45, 3 June 2006

Wanker? Isn't that kinda like calling someone a weenie? Or a doo-doo head? Moreover, this was a comment made on his personal talk page, outside any page discussion area, in an exchange with another poster about Seabhcan's willingness to continue participation. As such, i consider it a far more damning reflection on Mongo than Seabhcan: obviously, this particular administrator had so frustrated another that what had once been a sincere and zealous devotion to expanding Wikipedia content had become discontent so painful Seabhcan just quit. That's hardly "consensus building" as i understand it. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "(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

Interesting how Morty considers this an insult. In contrast, MONGO often aims similar barbs towards interlocutors and editors he disagrees with, often emphasizing his own superior age and experience. Should that be considered censurable incivility as well? Stone put to sky 08:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "I think its a fair comment given your recent trolling and accusations of 'junk science'. "[referring to MONGO]20:18, 30 April 2006

Where exactly is the insult here? This is a comment on what many consider MONGO's POV-pushing on the 911 thread (For the record: i side w/MONGO's intellectual position on this one, but am utterly contemptuous of and offended by his "management" techniques for "consensus building"; even a cursory glance at the discussion page shows a ham-fisted, self-indulgent reliance on banning and authortative, preferential treatement for favorable viewpoints which is IMO utterly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia).

Moreover, what preceded this comment by Seabhcan was an exceedingly uncivil threat by MONGO: "In light of your recent disagreements, do you think I am in a mood for a joke? Please see WP:NPA for future reference.--MONGO 13:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)" i.e. -- MONGO has a thin skin, and now Seabhcan's paying for it with this AN/I. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo!"10:14, 30 April 2006 - "Mongo's contribution to the world of science."

This is the comment (or one much like it) that provoked the exchange immediately above. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• 11:46,10 November 2006 edit summary ". . . Please learn something about European history before you edit."

At best this is mildly brusque and unpleasant. However, when one realizes that it was made in response to an editor's repeated insistence that a statement with 43(!) references from a book authored by a lead researcher from a Swiss Government-funded Academic-military think-tank is "fabrication...,conspiracism" and "lacking in reputable sources" then the comment appears as only a gentle reminder that things are getting out of hand.

Moreover, after re-reading MONGO's comments and responsses on other threads, in situations similar to this -- where he liberally bans people for a few days and then threatens them with longer bans if they revert any more of his edits, and then goes on to refuse further discussion in ways that can only be described as taunting and baiting -- one can hardly claim that this is somehow excessive behavior. In fact, between the two Seabhcan clearly represents a much closer adherence to the Wikipedia consensus. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "You should perhaps consider using your education when you make edits. To claim that Gladio is a hoax is laughable. I had assumed you were merely ignorant. Obviously that isn't the reason you made such a silly edit. What is the reason?"16:56, 10 November 2006

Again, same book; same authority; a similar number of edits. Moreover, in this particular context "ignorant" isn't an insult (Read: "I had assumed you were merely ignorant [of the facts presented by this book].") "Silly" is a very, very mild pejorative, and the final question is a demand that the editor in question justify themselves against WP:NPOV and WP:Soapbox.

The main difference here is that Seabhcan isn't citing the guidelines like some sort of military manual("WP:RS!! WP:NPOV!!! WP:REF!!!!"), but instead challenging his interlocutors on those violations with colloquial phrases and common language. I fail to see how that qualifies as either uncivil or a personal attack. Stone put to sky 08:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "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.

I was present at this exchange. Frankly, i think Morty should receive a permanent ban for the libellous activity in which he engaged; it's realio, trulio dangerous to wikipedia and contrary to the very foundations on which it is based. Regardless, a summation of this exchange goes like this: Morty attacked Dr. Ganser (Swiss Academic, mentioned above) as a 911 conspiracy theorist (he isn't) and an anti-semite. Nobody -- and i mean absolutely nobody -- has published any material of any sort accusing Dr. Ganser of anti-semitism. This was an accusation created out of thin air by Morty and his associates, and in the context of a disputed passage where Ganser points out that some language used to define major operational portions of the CIA qualify it as a terrorist organization even according to definitions propagated and widely used in the U.S. itself.

Let me repeat that: Morty and a couple of other people were engaged in clearly documented libel against a researcher with whom they had a disagreement in conclusions. In such a context, i consider Seabhcan's behavior and words to be not only appropriate, but quite gentle. Taken in context, Seabhcan's words are nothing more than the statement of an extremely unpleasant fact, and i consider Morty lucky for not receiving a lifetime ban. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• ". . . Wikipedia seems to be dominated by a bunch of anti-free speach fascists, . . ." 11:28, 11 November 2006 and the edit summary "(monkeys run the zoo.)"

"Fascism" is a clearly defined political term. Calling someone a "fascist" is no less nor more offensive than calling someone a "liberal", which -- as we have seen above -- MONGO himself is more than prone to do. While i deplore Seabhcan's lack of tact and decorum in giving vent to these sentiments, again -- this is hardly the stuff of an AN/I, and if it is then there is far more evidence by which we should convict MONGO, instead. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• ". . . Doing that makes you seem dishonest, when perhaps, you are merely lazy." 14:45, 10 November 2006

Again, where's the personal insult? If i say to my friend "Doing that makes you seem angry, rather than just dissatisfied" -- am i insulting them? Aren't we supposed to presume good faith here first? In the context of a collaborative editing process, this sort of advice is both necessary and commendable, and obviously intended to improve Wikipedia rather than advance some sort of personal agenda. Nor does it discredit certain contributions wholesale. This citation is clearly one of good will and constructive wiki intent. Apparently, the poster against whom this was directed can't tell the difference between good-faith collaboration and personal incivility and insults. Stone put to sky 08:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Thats daft. First . . ." (referring to Tbeatty's reasoning in the previous paragraph) 17:29, 13 November 2006

Daft? This qualifies as a personal insult? Uncivil? Really, now. Correct me if i'm wrong, but "daft" is basically a synonym for "silly", no? "That's silly/daft" is clearly a comment on some assertion or suggestion that had just been made, and was followed by a fact- or logic-based rebuttal of some sort. Stone put to sky 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "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

• "'in fact am always respectful'! [Quoting Mongo] Ha ha ha ha. You do have a sense of humour! The Forest Gump of Physics 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

MONGO? Respectful? I'd laugh, too, if the idea weren't such an obvious and lamentable lie. More points to Seabhcan for larrikin self-control. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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

Would Fred protest that MONGO label someone a liberal as "over the top"? I hardly think so. Yet each week we Americans see people in the mainstream media calling for the imprisonment, murder, torture, and violent silencing of "liberals", while the last time i think anyone in the American Media seriously discussed the dangers of Fascism or Fascists was, oh, back in 1944 or so.

I really do think there's something of a double standard going on here. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "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. ..." 08:13, 19 November 2006

This is a comment made in an RfC, and it tacitly cites WP:NPOV, WP:Harassment, WP:Soapbox, WP:Destructive Editing, among others. But beyond being an observation i validate, i'd like to point out that it took place amidst an RfC over FFAFA's personal behavior; in such a context, questioning if maliciously motivated political and social alliances are involved is appropriate, since in fact the RfC was itself a commentary on the intent, civility and disruptiveness of FFAFA. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "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)

Would someone please point out to me how this is in the least bit uncivil? Larrikin prodding, perhaps, and self-deprecatory, and cynically observant. But i don't see anything in the WP guidelines that prohibits wry cynicism or observation. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "I have started an AN/I on you idiotic threat to block SalvNaut. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)"07:47, 26 November 2006

Again, this is an interesting case: MONGO threatened to block SalvNaut because he didn't like what SalvNaut was posting. Seabhcan, by this point, was more than fed up with MONGO's abuse of administrative privileges to push a POV. However, Seabhcan is always reluctant to initiate an AN/I against people, preferring instead to persuade them with vigorous argument and challenging rhetoric (both of which are prominently listed on the guideline pages as positive Wikipedia qualities!). MONGO quickly backed off the threat. Shortly after that, MONGO initiated this AN/I of his own, against Seabhcan.

There certainly seems to be a pattern there. I have had only a small bit of interaction with Seabhcan, but i can attest that i have already urged him to pursue an AN/I against several of the people posting here. He demurred, saying he thought it too harsh a punishment. In this instance alone, we can see the essential difference between Seabhcan and MONGO: where MONGO easily indulges a penchant for abuse of administrative privilege, self-indulgent bans on posters with whom he disagrees, and capricious AN/I's, Seabhcan prefers instead to use persuasion, wit, and mild ridicule to develop Wikipedia.

The point, again, is simple: which administrator do the people here think most benefits the community? Which administrator is more in lines with the Five Wiki Pillars? Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• "OliverH, 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... "10:35, 25 November 2006

Eh. Seabhcan's comments here are over the top and, again, worthy of condemnation. But also these were clearly a statement regarding Morton's adherence to guidelines WP:NPOV, WP:Harassment, WP:Soapbox, WP:Disruptive Editing, WP:RS, and probably a few other WP:__'s as well. Thus, while the language used is inappropriate, the fact remains that they are all commentary on Morton's lack of adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and community consensus. Furthermore, considering the acrimonious and malicious behavior Seabhcan has long tolerated up until now -- and that Morton has brought the entire Wikipedia into question by committing actual, real-world libel -- then i really don't think that Morton has much to complain about here. Stone put to sky 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Point-by-Point Pt. Deux

issue:[153]

“ Having failed to gain consensus on the talk page, you are now trying to force the language you prefer by reverting. If Mongo hadn't blocked you first, I or another would have. The block is appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC) ”

The editing tactic Tom Harrison is condemning in this case is one that is *REGULARLY* used by the cabal of editors that MONGO protects and represents adminstratively. For instance, it is currently being used by NuclearZero on the Allegations of Terrorism by United States of America. Thus, what we have here is a case where MONGO was banning another poster for tactics that he and his supporting editors regularly use against those whose rhetoric they oppose. Stone put to sky 04:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Zero's charges RE: "Out of Context"

Taken out of context? MONGO's statements stand on their own, and could not have been clearer. It is very difficult to demonstrate how MONGO and his cabal repeatedly abuse edit-reverts to have their way with pages they target. How can one show in only a few sentences activity that takes place repeatedly, over days, spread out across pages of discussion and edits and which involves several editors working tag-team over a single disputed issue? This behavior is quite consistent in its manifestation: Some random poster gives a citation for an ICCC condemnation of the U.S. (take your pick which one); the citation is deleted, perhaps by Morty. Said poster re-instates it, with anther citation. It's then deleted by JungleCat. Said poster then re-instates it again, with yet another citation. It's then deleted by Zero. Said poster is getting frustrated by this time, and re-instates it with another source. TDC comes in and moves it to a different section of the article. Said poster restores it to a place of relevance: and gets warned that they are engaging in an edit war, and if they revert once more they will be banned.

One can simply throw dice as to what the excuses for the reverts and edits will be; there are several portions of the WP:RS that are sufficiently vague, however, as to allow this group to bully down whatever new poster they wish to target. What is undeniably true is that, after having posted to a page that gets repeatedly reverted to a state MONGO, et al favor -- and then frozen there by administrative fiat -- targetted posters get discouraged from adding new content or continuing edits because it becomes apparent that with MONGO's administrative protection and the saturated attention of his favored posters there will be little chance of anyone else participating meaningfully in the editing process.

By way of example, I for one have been posting to just such a page these last few weeks [154]; when asked to provide sources, i do so -- and often for facts so widely available they are trivial, as when it was demanded that the *lack* of a particular legal definition be sourced. When the sources have been provided, the opposition goes into a second stage, where the content gets "edited" into a virtually unintelligible state that includes stupendously bad grammar, distracting, misleading and/or improper syntax, and outright fabrication. When the blatant grammar and rhetorical mistakes are corrected, bickering begins over where the content should be located -- and the indefatigable consensus of the Cabal is that "The lower on the page, the better", preferably separated to a different portion of the page where it is out of context and virtually meaningless. Then, later -- and i have seen this happen twice now in the last month -- someone comes on and claims irrelevancy and deletes the source outright.

In this last vein, statements like "(U.S. Gov't. Assertion) A...but in contrast, (International Org. Assertion) Not-A" get separated with claims that "Assertion Not-A doesn't belong in this section." The phrase is then relocated elsewhere, "in contrast..." and all! When these reverts are protested, the posters simply state that they won't listen any more and if it continues they'll protest (i.e. -- start) an edit war. Such threats of edit wars are abundantly clear: if the reverts continue, the posters will revert the edits and freeze the page in a worse state than it already has been worked into. And it is *always* clear who will do the freezing: MONGO.

MONGO just should not have administrative privileges; he is using them to abuse the Wikipedia process on too many pages to count, and with this attack on Seabhcan has now taken his hubris to a new level. Stone put to sky 04:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC

Evidence presented by NuclearUmpf

I was not gonig to get involved with this because I do not believe Arbcom is effective or necessary. However some of the evidence being presented is highly slanted and taken out of context or does not show the full picture including resolution. So instead of presenting evidence against others, I do not believe in mud slinging, I will attempt to bring context to evidence I feel is lacking context. For instance:

Deeper Context

Stone put to sky's - MONGO is an out of control POV pusher

There is much taken from the user page of DickClarkMises presented above. The complete issue is that MONGO felt as though they were violating WP:NOT by putting a link and mention of their election efforts, they were seeking a political office and mentioned this fact on their userpage. Per WP:NOT, MONGO stated this was advertising / campaigning and not how their userpage was suppose to be used.[155] MONGO then took the issue to AN/I when DCM objected to the request. [156] An admin then chimed in KillerChihuahua with his opinion backing MONGO's statement.[157] Eventually the AN/I discussion concluded it seems that the link was fine and MONGO apologized to the user.[158]

Issues from 2005? This is clearly so far off that it cannot be seriously guaged as a meter for how the user is today. MONGO was arguing that a book that alleged that Bush used cocaine should not be used because it was not based on facts but hearsay, Tony Sidaway argued that it didnt matter because it was a book, and hence useable as it passes WP:RS and WP:V, WP:V is in question actually.

Items regarding User:Pokipsy76. If you look at both dif's being given and simply click ahead slightly, you would see that another admin steps in and agree's with MONGO on the issues, that admin being Tom Harrison.

• First issue:[159]

“ Having failed to gain consensus on the talk page, you are now trying to force the language you prefer by reverting. If Mongo hadn't blocked you first, I or another would have. The block is appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC) ”

• Second issue:[160]

“ That's entirely appropriate. Having failed to gather a consensus, some are now trying to force their changes by repeated reverts. That's disruptive, whether it's one revert in twenty-four hours or four. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) ”

• Pshemp, another admin even steps in and removes the request further stating the block was appropriate.[161] and further again after Pokipsy76 requests unblocking a second time.[162] Pokipsy's page was then protected to prevent his from using the unblock template after the third time he put it back. [163]

So it seems these issues above are taken slightly out of context as there was an ongoing issue with the user that is not framed in any context and MONGO was supported by another admin in this instance.

Stone put to sky's - "Point-by-Point Pt. Deux"

I just want to simply point out that what Stone describes in the first paragraph is a user continuing in a revert war while noone else that is editing the article agree's with them.

• User A adds item B
• User Z removes item B
• User A reinserts item B
• User Y removes item B
• User A reinserts item B
• User X removes item B

This is clearly against the concensus now if noone takes User A's side to even defend the edit, so User A is systematically reverting even though noone agree's with them, yet this is taken as proof of a "cabal" instead of proof that what is being inserted may be flawed or not appropriate. Stone then blames WP:RS for being "vague." The truth is the situation above is a violation and clearly one should not revert 3x, simply because its the stated limit, nor should they practive WP:OWN and think thier contributions cannot be moved around.

As for the first thing, I find it disturbing that Stone would now attack me for something. I will not getting into a spitting war here and have already been accused of removing mass ammounts of information from an article only to have Stone not apologize after I point out that nothing was removed, simply moved to a matching section. I had a feeling that attempting to bring context to some of Stone's evidence would bring about such a response and am not surprised. This is what the "cabal" of editors has to deal with, that even on a RfA, some people would make headings like "MONGO is an out of control POV pusher" and call other editors evidence "Largely Nonsense"

Travb's - WP:NPA violations: with cplot & WP:AGF violations: with cplot

Since noting Theron's statement above about the first issue regarding Travb's evidence I decided to look further and the next 4 incidents with times of 09:34, 29 November 2006, 09:26, 29 November 2006, 22:58, 28 November 2006, 22:52, 28 November 2006, are all related to cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has since been indef blocked from the site. After the block MONGO took it to AN/I for review and recieved 4 replies in support from Ghirla, Sirex98, Alex Bakharev and Guy. For an example of what cplot was doing and continued to do by launching sockpuppets after his standard block you can see below:

• Violating block by continuing to edit the article: [164][165][166][167]
• Violating block by editing the talk page: [168][169][170]
• Cplot sockpuppet request list + evidence of association: [171]

One of these is particularly venomous, yet required to see what kind of editor cplot was:[172]

“ ... now move on to raping babies or whatever it is you do in your freetime. Ban me. How are you going to ban me? Can you ban every IP address on the planet? Just for pointing out your silly ploy? --70.8.132.79 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) ”

As you can see cplot was in fact a troll, laid out broad accusations of Federal Agents editing Wikipedia to hide the truth, and of course of "raping babies" in their spare time. This user was attempted to work with on the talk page by numerous people including myself, which asked him to present some section that needed work, however all he ever did was attack them or insist that they were wrong.[173] The further claim that this was a case of WP:BITE is in fact wrong as cplot had been editing Wikipedia since May 2006,[174] with well over 500 edits under this belt.

Travb's - "Wikipedia:Protection policy"

The second instance listed dated, 21:15, 27 November 2006, was a case of simple vandalism. This occured because cplot insisted on readding the NPOV tag without specifying what exactly was a POV issue.[175] He would give broad statements like, "the sources", or it "hiding the truth" and then go on to accuse those who asked for more specific information of being "Federal Agents" etc as listed above. After I seen numerous editors attempting to find out something specific, I added a template to the talk page to help them outline their issues[176] and they replied accusing me of "defending blatant violations", and pretending "to be a facilitaror(sic)." This is with everyone disagreeing with them and asking them to provide proof and them never doing so. So I would call it petty vandalism to keep adding a tag that you are avoiding specifying anything about and when its based on accusations that feds are editing Wikipedia to bias the article.[177] That last dif also contains the USEBACA category issue that came up, you can clearly see them adding it to the talk page, they later played ignorant to how it got there and said it must have been a "Wikipedia software bug".[178]

Travb's - "WP:AGF:With CamperStrike"

This is another section that I believe is being taken as more then what it is on the surface. The issue was resizing images to match a specific resolution the user used, instead of leaving the default setting that allows the image to be resized according to each users own browser/Wikipedia settings. In the quote given:

"I realize he/she means well, but continued efforts to go around to articles and reduce the image sizes to accomdate high resolution setting for browsers is being disruptive."

Mongo is clearly assuming good faith by stating "I realize he/she means well", but points out the destructive nature of the edits and states those edits are disruptive. Context is important here because its obvious he is not talking about the user, as he states the user "means well" and is seeking to have the user stopped from continuing what they are doing.

Lovelight's - "Mongo Quotes"

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

   This was in direct response to a user stating that the September 11 attacks on the United States were not "terrorist attacks" even though 99.5% of the world agree's, because its a "judgemental term",[179] User Peter Grey then responded by posting the definition of terrorism to counter this arguement,[180] and Mongo in agreement with Peter Grey stated the above. The article still says "terrorist attacks."[181]

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

   This was in response to Doc Glasgow stating that he was going to unwatch the page, 9/11 attacks, and that: I'll not trouble you with debate any longer. Spin it your way. --Doc 22:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Mongo's reaction was clearly sarcastic, being as its not just "his way" but as pointed out in the discussion by Doc himself, the way of 99.5% of the population, and by Mongo as the way the news and other enclyclopedia's portray the event.[182]

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

   This was a mistaken situation that Damburger goes on to explain in the very next edit. Mongo seems to have misread and thinks Damburger is arguing for the use of the label Islamofacists over Islamic Militants, Damburger corrects him in the very next edit, all 3 parts of the discussion are present in this dif.[183] Mongo does not even return to the discussion, however it proceeds with numerous other people opposing Damburgers request that the events no longer be cited as "terrorist attacks"

Mongo's - "Seabhcan has misused his admin tools"

The first item mentioned regarding placing the page under protection for the purposes or removing the {{hoax}} tag is actually an example of a good edit. The page on Operation Gladio is actually factually supported. The events and concept of Nato "stay behind" networks is highly sourced and while one of the sources is disputed to an extent, even the US government has since admitted they existed. While generally I am against "conspiracy theories" dominating articles on Wikipedia, or being given credit to them through their appearance here, Gladio is actually a well documented event and the citations in the article are in abundance. While I would not call it vandalism, it was quite clear to me at least that protecting the page was necessary to keep the falsely placed hoax tag off. This is as much an content dispute as a hoax tag appearing on the articles of major religions, and religious figures.

TheronJ - "Seabhcan is unrepentant and sees Wikipedia as a battleground"

I believe this section is a little out of context as well. Seabhcan believes that multiple editors work together to create some of the issues he opposes. He is being asked to apologize first to one of those editors, its not really a response to a request to stop abusing his admin tools. He is shooting down the idea of apologizing first, attempting to change first. As Seabhcan puts it in the next edit:[184]

“ 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) ”

The issue here is that Seabhcan see's the only way to resolve the issue is to have everyone come to an agreement, or everyone apologize and actually mean it. I actually agree as I chime in, fake apologies won't change the situation, just create shock when everything goes back to the way it was. As seabhcan states, he doesn't believe the "cabal" as he calls it will accept the apology anyway. This is where it ends with my asking him not to call them a cabal. I have asked him myself he not use terms like that or politically divisive names, but point out again, everyone on both sides has: "freeper", "dems", "cons" etc. So one person should not be punished for the sins of all involved, in terms of that issue. I also want to point out that while Travb was making a sincere attempt to get Seabhcan to offer up an apology first, noone from the "opposing side" came forth to apologize or even comment.

In the other dif where Seabcan is stated by TheronJ to be refusing an attempt by Mongo, I did not see it that way, the dif specifically states Seabhcan asking for more people to be involved in this de-escalation. For example, Seabhcan asks Mongo to get everyone together to hammer out a code of conduct for "controversial topics",[185] that code of conduct included only adding material that is sourced by WP:RS, meaning having the source ready before adding the information, the more sources the better. I will not state this is fully out of context, but I believe its more of an attempt to expand the offer put forth by Mongo to include everyone and end the situation once and for all with a set of guidelines everyone can work under.[186][187][188]

The dysfunctionality of the RfC

The disfunctionality fo the RfC should have stopped this from ever coming to ArbCom, noone really makes an attempt to resolve the situation, though me briefly and Travb usually attempted to help people find a middle ground. It seemed not many realized that RfC's are not stepping stones to RfA's, but instead attempts to resolve the dispute. For instance the person who opened the RfC, Tom Harrison at one point states:[189]

“ 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) ”

This contrary to the very point of the RfC. The RfC is not just to document evidence for use later, how can anyone claim to have made a resolution attempt when in fact, noone cared to use the talk page to resolve anything. Tom specifically stated "As far as I am concerned the only purpose of this RfC is to solicit comment on Seabhcan's behavior.",[190] which is quite a shame.

Evidence presented by Junglecat

Responses to civility "evidence" against MONGO and NPA issues as presented by User:Travb

Travb is quick to point out that MONGO has violated WP:NPA [191] in that he removed text from his talk page here. Looks like MONGO did the right thing. It doesn’t look good defending users who are involved in violating WP:SOCK as per this log, and who are disruptive in my honest opinion. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 13:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Morton_devonshire

This is an arbitration about Seabhcan's behavior. While tangental discussion about the other editors is to be expected, the focus of this Request for Arbitration is with respect to Seabhcan's behavior and we shouldn't lose sight of that. If you want to open an Rfc/Arb on MONGO, then "fill your boots" as the Canadians say, but this Arbcom is primarily about Seabhcan.

1. "I don't know but I'm open to suggestions! Really, there are only 5-10 of these problem editors. However, they seem to have an extraordinary amount of time to devote to their trolling. We honest editors have real lives to live. If we had a solid group of about 20-30 editors willing to cover wikipedia in shifts and to shout down this POV-pushing then we could balance them (or force their employers to hire a few more goons to edit)"17:34, 18 November 2006
2. "You can try, and you may win some battles. The problem is that this group of editors will wait like vultures until you or others lose interest and move on. Then they'll go to work again stripping away material that they don't want others to see."16:27, 18 November 2006
3. "I agree. Thanks for your support. Mo-ty needs to learn to put his fanatical nationalism to one side when he edits."21:45, 17 November 2006
4. "Oh, but pushing Mo-ty's buttons is so easy and fun. You should try. Its addictive." 21:57, 17 November 2006
5. "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
6. "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.
7. 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"
8. "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
9. 08:50, 21 July 2006 "I think you need a holiday - or a psychiatrist."
10. "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
11. "Ha ha. Mongo - I don't doubt that you 'spread lies', as you put it, in your spare time."11:13, 20 July 2006
12. "Thanks for the pep talk Guinnog, but I'm too fed up with this wanker [referring to MONGO] to work on the 9/11 stuff anymore."18:45, 3 June 2006
13. "(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
14. "I think its a fair comment given your recent trolling and accusations of 'junk science'. "[referring to MONGO]20:18, 30 April 2006
15. "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."
16. 11:46,10 November 2006 edit summary ". . . Please learn something about European history before you edit."
17. "You should perhaps consider using your education when you make edits. To claim that Gladio is a hoax is laughable. I had assumed you were merely ignorant. Obviously that isn't the reason you made such a silly edit. What is the reason?"16:56, 10 November 2006
18. "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.
19. ". . . Wikipedia seems to be dominated by a bunch of anti-free speach fascists, . . ." 11:28, 11 November 2006 and the edit summary "(monkeys run the zoo.)"
20. ". . . Doing that makes you seem dishonest, when perhaps, you are merely lazy." 14:45, 10 November 2006
21. "Thats daft. First . . ." (referring to Tbeatty's reasoning in the previous paragraph) 17:29, 13 November 2006
22. "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
23. "'in fact am always respectful'! [Quoting Mongo] Ha ha ha ha. You do have a sense of humour! The Forest Gump of Physics 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
24. 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
25. "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. ..." 08:13, 19 November 2006
26. "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)
27. "I have started an AN/I on you idiotic threat to block SalvNaut. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)"07:47, 26 November 2006
28. "OliverH, 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... "10:35, 25 November 2006

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.

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.

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.