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:.

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.

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

My two cent is that all the editors posting here have achieved new and extraordinary levels of incivility, rudeness and POV pushing. This includes, but is not limited to, Tom Harrison, Morton Devonshire and particularly Mongo, who once proudly stated in ANI that "I intend to insult you and others" in reply to a request to be more civil. That he wasn't then censured, but infact supported by other wikipedians, proved to me that some editors are above the law, and I lost interest in defending the wiki. I haven't edited much since.

It would be a happy day to see all these editors blocked - "a plague on both your houses"! Seabhcán 11:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to CamperStrike
CamperStrike has worked on the Yellowstone National Park article since early/mid November, expressing interest in adding detailed subarticles. Aside from that, he has been somewhat disruptive. On Wednesday (Nov. 29), he blanked the "human history" section of the article, and and introduced peculiar spelling errors (e.g. changing "National Park Service" to "Natioal Park Srvice"), with absolutely no explanation for these edits. CamperStrike has also edited from an anonymous IP, evading WP:3RR and edit warring over image sizes. CamperStrike's comments here were also added by an IP, presumably CamperStrike. The article is over-cluttered with images, and CamperStrike kept adding more and making the images smaller. I stepped in and protected the page, whilst the edit warring was going on, trying to get discussion going on the talk page and find some consensus. I exceedingly used assumed good faith towards CamperStrike. The protection was soon reduced to semi-protection, and has now been lifted. Other users (e.g. User:Vsmith, User:Geologyguy, and User:Wsiegmund) have also been involved in the discussions.

As for CamperStrike's comment "brags about small contibutions to a in a "Featured Article" that may have never been featured before. Very egotistical" I'm familiar with MONGO's work on Retreat of glaciers since 1850, and have seen the other articles (Glacier National Park (US), Shoshone National Forest, and Redwood National and State Parks). He was indeed a major contributor on these articles, bringing them to featured status. He was also tremendously helpful as I was working to get Banff National Park to featured status. He is highly familiar with relevant policies and expectations for featured articles. Yellowstone National Park is also a featured article, but has been for quite some time, and the WP:FAC have become much more stringent. Yellowstone is a potential candidate for featured article review, though MONGO has come along and started working on fixing up the article and getting to meet current featured article criteria. Experienced Wikipedians, MONGO included, are happy to have CamperStrike and other new contributors helping with the article. Though, CamperStrike has been unwilling to work with others on the article in a collaborative manner, in respect to consensus. I hope he/she keeps contributing and learning, but with disruptive edits such as blanking section and adding numerous misspellings, I am beginning to be concerned about CamperStrike.

Anyway, this RFAB is about User:Seabhcan and not MONGO or CamperStrike. There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about MONGO's handling of the situation with CamperStrike. Articles about national parks shouldn't be places of such edit warring, over rather trivial details as image sizes. --Aude (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA
Examples include: "...theres no point getting cross with Morton. His aims here are so hypocritical as to be laughable. He is a caricature wont unto flesh. His world view is so narrow that a cigarette paper of enlightenment could not be slipped between his prejudice and his bigotry, etc", "I think you need a holiday - or a psychiatrist.", "...or force their employers to hire a few more goons to edit", "...Wikipedia seems to be dominated by a bunch of anti-free speach fascists" and the edit summary "monkeys run the zoo", "This article is his personal kitty-litter and he won't stand to see it defiled with fact or information", ''"Mongo's insults don't bother me. I've come to realise that he's probably just a 15 year old kid using his dad's computer, laughing through his zits at what he can get away with", "Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo!", "To claim that Gladio is a hoax is laughable. I had assumed you were merely ignorant", "Here's some more anti-semitic bilge from Monty" with edit summary "Monty and TDC, brothers in antisemitism". More examples via comments and edit summaries can easily be found:, , , . "I can conclude that either you didn't read these reports or you didn't understand them, either way, you are talking through your arse, and I give up. Have fun protecting this little island of ignorance you planted your flag on"''. Seabhcan repeatedly has referred to established editors that disagree with his edits as "trolls", a "cabal", and with other derogatory comments and was blocked on 11/25/2006 for a no personal attacks policy violation.

Seabhcan makes broad generalizations about "Americans"
Seabhcan seems to have some bias against "Americans" who he also refers to as "nationalistic" in a derogatory manner: "...sick of talking to dumb Americans who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history" (which he slightly altered after extensive discussion), "Mo-ty needs to learn to put his fanatical nationalism to one side when he edits", "They are here to push their personal nationalistic bias. History, citation, reality, take a back seat to promotion of their personal myths.", "I will point out that Tbeaty, Mongo, TDC, Morton Devonshire and others have been behaving as an unacceptable and trollish cabal who attempt to push their nationalist POV while punishing users who stand up to them" , "The problem is that Americans are uniquely defensive of what they think should be true, rather than what is true", and "Hi 81.165... The answer is no. Your research will not be accepted. If anything you add is in any way objectionable to the American editors, or any one of them, they will gang up on you and bully you out of wikipedia. It doesn't matter how many references or sources you have. Wiki-reality is what the American editors say it is. If Bush says up is down and down is up, then this article will be up for deletion tomorrow (its clearly conspiracy cruft anyway)", "...for many American editors the events of 9/11 have become a kind of religious dogma, and they are unwilling or unable to step back and consider them dispassionately". This kind of commentary is not conducive to an international effort to write an encyclopedia.

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

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

Harassment
After I gave a bad warning to indefinitely block User:SalvNaut for what I saw as a personal attack, Seabhcan then came to my talkpage and stated "My dearest Mongo, I have started an AN/I on you (sic) idiotic threat to block SalvNaut" He then engaged me in discussions on the matter both on my talkpage and at AN/I, where I admitted after reviewing others sentiments on the issue, I would not be blocking SalvNaut. During the course of these discussions, in which both Seabhcan and I were already online, Seabhcan then sent me two emails challenging me to block other editors who had commented on the situation. Seabhcan admitted to sending the emails. But the harassment isn't limited to me. Seabhcan has repeatedly belittled others, condescendingly talking down to various editors, making pun on their username (User:Morton devonshire), , and adding conflict where there should be none. As an administrator, Seabhcan should make better attempts to rise above such behavior, especially when dealing with non-admins.

Travb seeking revenge
Arbitrators should note that rather than striking out his "evidence" of my malfeasence, much of which I addressed below, he has instead simply removed his completely inaccurate assessments of my actions, after realizing he, once again, has misrepresented the evidence, in his haste to find faults where there are none.

Retribution for past ArbCom decision
During my recent arbcom case brought against me, (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, "You can email me if you like, I can help you. I have gone up against more intellegent and crafty wikipedians than you are fighting with now, and succeeded, repeatedly",  proceeded to my arbcom case and demanded disciplinary action be brought against me, accused Fred Bauder of having a "first-mover advantage"  based on an article Travb cited. Travb then requested that Rootology be given a "watered down free pass" as I had supposedly be given, 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.,,. Travb then went on to claim that he felt that Fred Bauder was biased since he thinks Fred and I are both conservatives,,. 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. and then returned to the arbcom case to be disruptive, was blocked (one of many blocks) and later apologized to Fred and myself after he had calmed down. I discussed his behavior here.

Travb defends indefinitely blocked abusive editor Cplot
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", "For a history of bad behavior, please refer to the several RfCs and history of uncivil behavior of Mongo", (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., ...even though the block was asked for review by me and there were zero who questioned the block , except Travb. Perhaps in his haste to find fault in my actions, Travb seems to have overlooked the fact that another editor added 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 "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia...". Checkuser confirms that Cplot is the only person editing in the range of the IP's that have added numerous malicious attacks to various pages.

Travb misrepresents protected page
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. 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" and leaving a comment on the talk page that I had protected the page "due to a disagreement regarding WP:BLP". 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.

Travb defends disruption by CamperStrike
I left a message on User:CamperStrike's talkpage for an edit he did  in which he removed an entire section from a featured article and deliberately mispelled a number of words in the next section. Travb then comes along and accuses me of violating NPA, stating: "Looks like MONGO is accusing other editors of vandalism again, I can't keep up with all of his WP:NPA attacks. In only examining the last 10 days I have 3 pages of evedience of his behavior" My comment to CamperStrike was not a personal attack in any way, fashion or form, and with over 1,000 edits, this editor is definitely not a newbie. Three other editors have also stated that they have found CamperStrikes's edits to be counterproductive.,, "You should read what CamperStrike wrote in my talk after I pointed out he removed the Human History section in Yellowstone. This guy is nothing but trouble. I wish he could be removed from the site completely. And the fact he doesn't always use his name doesn't help his case." All editors have the right to ask other editors why they would vandalize a page. As in the case where Travb showed up at the Requests for arbitration/MONGO case immediately after seeing that Rootology was going to be indefinitely banned, having never before edited that case, and now defending Cplot, who every other editor has openly stated is a troll who has also been using numerous IPs to post incredibly inflammatory remarks, as well as CamperStrike who numerous editors have clearly is being disruptive...I can find no good faith in Travb's efforts here, except to engage in a witch hunt. As further proof of what lies behind his motives, his comments "This is about your behavior and your abuse of admin priveleges and the free pass you were given in your first ArbCom" (again, "and the free pass you were given in your first ArbCom" should be clear that Travb's motives here are retribution, revenge and at this point, harassment. CamperStrike has been confirmed by checkuser to be a blocked editor evading his blocks and has now been blocked indefinitely, so again, as in the issue regarding Rootlogy, Cplot and now CamperStrike, Travb has demonstrated his massive loss of good faith by defending disruptive editors and making wildly incorrect accusations regarding my good faith intentions.

Travb abuses talk page etiquette
In the section that Travb has regarding talk page etiquette he quotes from the "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." Travb then cites  a diff I already explained as not being a removal, but a move to a place at the bottom of my talk page. Travb uses that as an "example" of my supposedly poor talkpage etiquette, yet almost immediately after I asked him a question regrading CamperStrike and his accusation that I violated NPA, without responding there, he immediately moved it from his talkpage to CamperStrikes and responds there. My question wasn't directed at CamperStrike...it was addressed to Travb...there was no reason to move it from his talkpage...this is a really incivil way to act and in keeping with what he himself has quoted, "In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings"

Travb makes incivil comments
"Oh Kelly Martin, RIP. Funny you should bring her up, she is an inspiration to much about what I wrote here. She had a part in getting me indefinetly booted. stubborn egotistical woman. Can I talk ill of the dead, or is this also against wikipolicy?", "pushing your own POV, with wikipolicy and AfDs as a weapon is what you really want to accomplish", "Notice how the "official" version adovates of 9/11 (most notably MONGO) are voting to delete this article" and Travb then expanded this full comment resulting in being blocked for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations.

Travb tries to find ways to "out" his opponents
On the flimsiest of "evidence", Travb will seek ways to eliminate those he has editing disputes with. After posting a request for checkuser on User:Morton devonshire which ended up having no merit, Travb comments "Can this user be booted for breaking wikipedia policy? Can he be banned from editing Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America?". Travb is told by User:Tbeatty to stop harassing Morton, and later responds, "Tbeatty is lying, here is the proof. If you are an admin, you need to by desysoped. If you are a regular user, you need to be booted. Because you are a liar.". Travb was then told by Tbeatty that the allegation is without prrof, and Travb states again that, "User:Tbeatty is a liar, he is attempting to confuse editors, by using a section which has nothing to do with the alleged sock puppet. I am going to report this to the admin board, and if he is an admin, I am going to file a desyop claim.". Travb is told he is in error by a third party, and after several editors explained why, Travb admits he was wrong and had misread the info. ...in his haste to find ways to eliminate his opposition, Travb is prone to making wildly inaccurate accusations.

User:Miltopia
(wonderful edit) and now others:,, posted an incivil comment about me , and admits it apologized, then comments about my response time. A week later he states, "Ordering others around ain't the best way to be persuasive about whatever dick thing you're talking about.". He then comments "MONGO, all you have to do is like, not stalk me, and you won't be bothered by me." asking me to not "stalk him", yet out of the blue, posts to a talk page discussion I am involved in here which he only would have found by looking at my contributions. He does the same thing here and shortly thereafter, shows up on an article I have started here, he misrepresents that he isn't stalking me, yet then, again removes brackets I had placed for an article I was going to also start almost immediately, he again states he isn't stalking me. After I told him I was going to block him for disruption, he again claims "Trust me, it is not my goal to facilitate interaction with you.", which is ridiculous since about the only way he would have made alterations to three different pages is if he was tracking my contributions. Full discussion. Later, Miltopia, out of the blue shows up on the Seabhcan Rfc I am involved in and having never once before voting for an admin nominee, votes "Oppose" for a candidate of mine. Subtle, controlled edit stalking...yet Travb seems to think I can't see the diffs. Miltopia is an admitted encyclopedia dramatica editor who uses the same username at that website and has added venomous attacks on several different articles there about Wikipedians.

My behavior
I admit I am very often blunt in my rhetoric, and as a skeptic, I always question information that is not mainstream. Seabhcan and I seem to have first encountered each other in April 2006, on articles related to the events of 9/11/2001. I think my short, oftentimes dismissive responses to non-mainstream "evidence" can oftentimes be seen as rude by others, perhaps evoking a poor response. I recently stated my belief regarding my encounters with Seabhcan by commenting to him "Between us, I know not exactly who threw the first stone, though your threat to block me while we were in an editing dispute was alarming. I know I haven't been as civil as I can, but feel that while I stopped this towards you some time ago, you have persisted, and as of late, you have only gotten worse. The people who oppose your edits or references aren't a cabal or fascists or dumb Americans"

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

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

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. 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 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". Kizzle supported my adminship, 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.

CamperStrike's comments
User:CamperStrike is a new editor that has no interest in working collaboratively. I and others have repeatedly asked him to work collaboratively and to participate in the talk pages., and others have questioned him regrading his efforts to adjust the images. ,,. CamperStrike demanded images be reduced, primarily due to the fact that his screen resolution is set at near maximum. He has repeated demanded that the Yellowstone National Park article include images that can already be found in the link to the commons repository. He has edited using both his username and from various IP's, here claiming after much discussion "By the way, I am on a dynamic IP, so this IP address (68.207.207.137) could change at anytime. Sincerly" which he mentioned after I pointed out the WP:3RR policy. I had started adding proper references to the article and when CamperStrike started to edit the article, the situation became untenable. I had to have the article semi-protected for awhile and made comments about my exasperation here. CamperStrike has also created several articles that were deleted as there was no text, just a collection of links. For no apparent reason, CamperStrike simply removed the human history section from the Yellowstone article here, and changed the wording of remaining words in the following sections from "built" to "bult", "many" to "may", "National" to "Natioal", "Service" to "Srvice" and "prescribed" to "prscribed". Looks like disruption to me, and according to what I discussed above, myself and several other editors were correct.

Email anon contribution posted by User:The Epopt
In response to the diffs provided in that email, my adminship passed, a a number of those that initially opposed, change to no vote, neutral or support. The second link is to the evidence page of my prior abrcom cases, in which the original filer of the case was indefinitely banned, as was another editor. That case has been setlled, so I have no idea what the arugment is there. The third link is to a conversation at AN/I, where Georgewilliamherbert is claiming I shouldn't have removing links to encyclopedia dramatica and instead had someone else do it. The fourth diff is regarding attempts by User:Badlydrawnjeff to have mediation between us performed. I have no idea what the mediation was to solve, I said the best thing for us was to create space...it's a big wiki so that should be easy. The fifth link? I haven't the foggiest what that anon is trying to say. If there is some suggestion that I have attacked anyone off wiki, I'd really like to see some proof on that issue.

CBD comments
CBDunkerson did initiate the request for comment regarding blocks I had performed on several editors, as I already openly mentioned in the My behavior section above. As mentioned, I signed most but not all of the opinions that I shouldn't block those that I could be seen as having a content dispute with. The community overall in that Rfc was split and I could have been obstinate and continued to stand my ground, as Seabhcan has argued on his Rfc, that nothing wrong had occurred. However, even though my block of the main aggrieved party (User:Pokipsy76) was supported by two other admins, one of which I had never met until she agreed with my block, I indeed made it clear that I would not block anyone again if would might appear that I am in a editing conflict with them. To my knowledge, I have adhered to this principle since. If he wants to bring up my blocks to protect myself from the harassment I received during the encyclopedia dramatica affair, it should be noted that this was already reviewed in the Requests for arbitration/MONGO.

Lovelight's comments
Lovelight mentions below that he was blocked from editing. Not sure why he would have liked to continue to keep harassing information about a number of editors on his talkpage, when we have been removing it from everywhere else.

Proposed decision for my desysopping
I was never seeking a desyopping of Seabhcan and all I wanted was a NPA and civility settlement. Three of the "reasons" I am supposedly have abused my sysop tools are without merit:
 * On November 27, he protected Steven_E._Jones, which he had been active in editing.
 * As I mentioned in my evidence, I did this to prevert Cplot from going over 3RR...I protected the page on a version I didn't even like. There was an edit war that I was not currently involved in...I thought at that time Cplot was just a edit warrior...not the abusive editor he turned out to be...if I had known earlier, I wouldn't have protected the page on HIS version and just let him instead violate 3RR, since he was already on his third revert and likley would have gone over 3RR, a penalty he had been blocked for twice already in the week prior to that. The material being argued about between Cplot and others wasn't even things I was involved in...the diffs demostrating I had edit warred are from six weeks prior to my protecting the article.


 * On December 6, 2006, MONGO removed the full protection of September 11, 2001 attacks, which was protected after a dispute he was involved in.
 * I removed the full protection and instead changed it to semi-protection since the persons who had been edit warring had either been blocked or had moved on...it's that simple. There is no abuse here...I haven't even edited the article since I reduced the full protection to semi...


 * On November 13, MONGO unprotected Operation Gladio, which was protected during an edit war involving Seabhcan, with whom MONGO was in a dispute.
 * This wasn't done maliciously. I didn't do this to adversely impact Seabhcan and I don't think I have edited that article...not once that I can see in the last 500 edits...going back to the beginning of 2006.

The previous Requests for comment/MONGO was based on what was regarded by User:CBDunkerson and others as my blocking of User:Pokipsy76 and to a lesser extent two other editors as bad blocks, since they felt I was in an editing dispute with and should have gotten someone else to perform the blocks. Repeatedly, I told CBDunkerson(CBD) that Pokipsy76 had been removing content from numerous pages and just reverting with no attempts to discuss his changes on talkpages. My block of Pokispy76 was reviewed by Tom Harrison and Pschemp and after reposting his unblock request, Pschemp again removed it...Pokispy76 responded again abusing the unblock template, resulting in Pschemp protecting his talkpage. He had been warned several times about his editing and his misrepresentations about vandalism and a typical response to this was "ROTFL". Regardless, on the Rfc I clearly agreed with most of those that stated I shouldn't block anyone I could be seen to be in an editing dispute with. I signed most of those comments...agreeing with those that brought forth the Rfc. My recent mistaken threat to block Salvnaut indefinitely was reviewed by the community and no one agreed with me...I didn't even agree with me as the situation progressed and I clearly stated at AN/I that I would not be blocking this editor.

I am an active administrator...and since becoming an admin in November 2005, I have used my block/unblock abilities over 400 times, have protected/unprotected over 100 times and have deleted over 3,000 articles, most of them speedies...So out of 400 blocks, there is evidence I blocked one person I shouldn't have and threatened to block one or two more that didn't deserve it (Miltopia as one that maybe didn't deserve it, at least not an indefinite block). I'll be fair and round that up to 5 questionable blocks...out of something like 430 performed, roughly one per hundred. Is there any excuse for my one or two bad blocks or my threat to block someone else that doesn't deserve it...no. But I wish there was a way to look at active admins and see what the percentage of bad calls they make regarding blocks. I'm not talking about folks like CBDunkerson who has done about 350 deletions, blocked about 25 people and used his protection abilities less than 50 times since he was adminned last spring. I haven't gone and checked his admin work and assume it is excellent...but with so little activity as an admin and so little chance that he has bumped into the kind of disruption I have, it's no wonder he has little to have to explain for his actions. Who deserves to be an admin? For no pay and no reward, is the active admin who makes a few admin mistakes taken out back to have his hand cut off to spite his face? I am sure there are admins who have done five times the work I have done administratively and have s=crewed up less than I have...and that's terrific. But I am sure they are few in number. In Seabhcan's case, the guy has been an admin for more months than I, yet has done 7 protect/unprotects, blocked about 30 times and performed about 200 deletions. Seabhcan makes a couple errors with his admin tools in a year and a half...and he is crucified for it? Is there any requirement that an admin do admin work...no...but I don't remeber any kind of expectation that anyone be perfect. I am human, I make mistakes, as does anyone else. You gonna take away admin tools because I made a bad block six months ago, atoned for it on an Rfc and then threatened to block someone else I should haven't have threatened? Is arbcom going to start a new policy and demand that if a person has ever edited a page they can never protect/unprotect it? Next thing you know, we'll all be getting banned for misspellings. I listed the recent errors that Seabhcan has made with his admin tools only to show that he has been digressing, not improving in overall conduct. His Rfc was brought to arbcom because he did not want to make amends for the numerous incidents of incivility and violations of NPA and because I didn't like the fact that he sent me two provocative emails regarding the incident with Salvnaut when he and I were already in the middle of discussions on two different pages (My talk and on AN/I)...the emails weren't threatening, just attempts to provoke me and were borderline harassment. These two reasons are why we are here. Desysopping...I can't see it as an appropriate remedy for either party.

Evidence presented by User:Travb
''Caveat: I have told Seabhcan repeatedly to apologize for his stupid comments. Seabhcan has stubbornly refused. I believe this ArbCom is warranted against Seabhcan.

''Further, I have repeatedly said that Operation Gladio and the conspiracy theories that Seabhcan and others support I personally think have little basis in fact.

''I simply want the ArbCom to see the past editing behavior of both admins in this Wheel war, not just Seabhcan.

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: Many of MONGO's below edits, center around all of the same 9/11 pages which MONGO and Seabhcan have debated on "for the past 6 months".

I don't condone Rootlogy's, Cplot's, CamperStrike's or Seabhcan's bad behavior, or any other users bad behavior when dealing with MONGO. The questin to ask youself is:

As an admin, did MONGO handle all of the below situations appropriately, or did he make an edit war worse, instead of better? Should an admin call other wikiusers bigots, racists, trolls, jerks, and a chicken shit? Did MONGO ever apologize to any of these users for his outbursts?

Past Arbcom decisions

 * Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions Administrators have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block users, to protect pages, to edit protected pages, and to delete and restore pages. All of these abilities must be used in accordance with policy (the blocking, page protection, and deletion policies, respectively), and must never be used to "win" a content dispute.
 * Stevertigo "It is inappropriate to use your powers as a Wikipedia administrator with respect to a dispute you are personally involved in", Stevertigo desyoped.
 * Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war Wikipedia:Administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users cannot execute. This includes the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that Blocking policy is followed.
 * Freestylefrappe Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their powers are to be used only for appropriate reasons, as set forth in those policies, and should never be used in disputes in which the administrator is involved. (See Wikipedia:Administrators.) Freestylefrappe desyoped.

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

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

Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive149

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." Mongo left a note on SalvNaut's talk page warning against "suggesting bodily harm" and that he will block SalvNaut indefinitely.".

User:Tango, User:Amarkov, User:Stephan Schulz, User:Tariqabjotu, User:Samir_%28The_Scope%29, User:Cyde, User:CBDunkerson all strongly disagreed with MONGO. One editor states MONGO is making a fool of himself.  The other editors voice similar criticisms.

Example 2
According to User:CBDunkerson:
 * 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 Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive149)


 * 18:37, 18 June 2006, User talk:Pokipsy76, Post here and 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.

User talk:Pokipsy76 had less than 1000 edits.

Example 3

 * User:Gentgeen who unblocked User:Miltopia from an indefinate block that MONGO put on User:Miltopia disagreeing with MONGO's indefinate block: No matter who the user is off Wikipedia, the block in question was inappropiate and against policy. What part of the blocking policy supports an indefinate block in this situation? Was there vandalism? I didn't see any. Excessive reverts? I see a content dispute on two articles that the user didn't turn into a revert war, so no. Personal attacks, posting of personal information, or persistant copyright violations? Nope. Innapropiate username?
 * User:Luna Santin: "I for one am not yet convinced that the user should be summarily and indefinitely blocked, essentially without review, because the same person is victim, judge, and executioner. "

MONGO in response, accusses User:Miltopia of stalking and harrassment:
 * The least you should have done was to simply reduce the block period, rather than allow me to have to see that I have no rights to protect myself from his stalking. When admins don't provide some punitive action to deal with those whose efforts are to harass others, then they simply persist in their quest.


 * 16:28, 15 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, deleted garbage from moronic troll and two admins that support harassment, in reference to: User:Gentgeen, User:Miltopia and User:Luna Santin
 * 18:49, 30 October 2006, User talk:Miltopia, You're obvios a sock account of someones, and it appears that all you are here to do is troll, so either stop or you'll be blocked
 * 18:09, 30 October 2006, User talk:Miltopia, Stop trolling
 * 14:50, 15 November 2006, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, What I do care about is when an one of them comes here to stalk my edits and activities for the sake of harassment.
 * 14:40, 15 November 2006, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, The trolls can do whatever they want on that childrens website, but I won't put up with it here for one minute
 * 10:29, 15 November 2006, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents,  is an ED trolling account...I can understand a shortening of the block, but when admins are going around wheel warring with each other over whether it is sound to block an obvious trolling account, then this place is going down the tubes!
 * 10:09, 15 November 2006, User talk:Luna Santin, So you completely fail to know when a troll is pulling a fast one on you, eh
 * 10:01, 15 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, So you think his comments that he is trying to aviod me, but then comes around and deliberately tries to provoke me isn't trolling? Did you look at the diffs...why not just take care of something that we will eventually have to take care of anyway. Are you completely blind?
 * 09:40, 15 November 2006, User talk:Luna Santin, Do you know a troll when you see one? Just asking... is an ED trolling account
 * 07:22, 15 November 2006, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Typical pattern of the encyclopedia dramatica trolls is to come and stalk my edits, then when I tell them to stop or else, they come whining here. Anyone mind if I impose a block? Good. MONGO asks then answers his own question, without consensus.
 * 07:14, 15 November 2006, User talk:Miltopia I'm not here to play games with you, an ED troll. Allow me to edit in peace, or I will ensure I can do so
 * WP:OWN 07:13, 15 November 2006, Folsom Expedition, knock it off Revert war over Miltopia adding simple brackets   to Folsom Expedition, Miltopia wrote: "nice new article, but redlink is reeeeeeed"
 * 07:10, 15 November 2006, User talk:Miltopia Stop, or I will not hesitate to block you for disruption. I'm not kidding
 * 07:01, 15 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, Don't stalk me and you won't have that problem. You never edited that article before and I'm not interested in playing games with yet another ED troll

Example 4
Indefinite block of user based of new user (less than 1500 edits) who MONGO was in a long term dispute with, with no check user confirmation before indefinite block. Checkuser later confirms that Cplot is using anonymous IP addresses, after MONGO banned Cplot indefinetly. See below.

Comments to Cplot:
 * Calling Cplot a troll
 * 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?"
 * 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. (Cplot set up an alternative page for September 11, 2001, and MONGO put it up for deletion.)

''In regards to the comments of MONGO and Nuclear, the information on Cplot is still here, it has simply been rewritten. ''

Example 5

 * 13:09, 22 October 2006, User talk:MONGO, To User:Alecmconroy: Look...I'll make it simple for you: You reinsert that link, since you are aware that arbcom has made it clear I can and anyone can remove it, I will block you from editing for 24 hours. If you do it twice, I will block you for 48 hours...three times and I'll make it a week...and after that, it will be for good. I hope you understand...I hope this isn't too frustrating for you. NOW GET THE HELL OFF MY PAGE ABOUT THAT GODDAMN WEBSITE . I hope that answers your questiopn...post here again, and you'll be blocked for harassment.


 * 13:51, 22 October 2006, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, User:Alecmconroy responds with a message to ANI.

Full ANI: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive142 MONGO states: "my comment stands...if the ED trolls don't stay off my talk page, I will block them." 

MONGO knows WP:BP

 * 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.

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  User:Cplot requests for the page to be protected, MONGO, who is involved in  edit war, protects page.  MONGO explains why he is protecting the page: "I have protected this page due to a disagreement regarding WP:BLP...dicuss here and reach a realistic finalization on that policy as it pertains to this page."  MONGO edits the page:   Several dozen more on page history.

MONGO's explanation ignores that he violated Protection policy. There was clearly no vandalism in this case.


 * 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.

User talk:Sparkhead

 * [] In which, when questioned by User:Sparkhead Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. , MONGO replies: WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules)

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.
 * Help:Talk_page


 * 14:35, 22 October 2006, User talk:Sparkhead, The discussion does not involve you and you are trying to antagonize me...so here is your warning from me, an administrator. After erasing coomment by User:Sparkhead which warned MONGO politely of wikipedia violations.  MONGO erases  the comment a second time, despite the Help:Talk_page warning.

For November 2006

 * Anti-American to Seabhcan: 5 times.
 * Bigot: 10 times
 * Jerk: once
 * POV pusher: 7 times
 * Racist: twice

WP:NPA violations

 * With User:Ramdrake
 * 19:43, 13 November 2006, Human extinction, No, you bring your evidence to talk that this term is used...it is isn't...so cease your racist POV pushing nonsense.
 * 19:41, 13 November 2006, Dysgenics Reverting: In biology, dysgenics is a disputed concept, with the heading: revert racist POV pushing by Ramdrake.
 * 19:38, 13 November 2006, Devolution (fallacy), Removing: "The claim that the genetic quality of human populations can deteriorate due to a relaxation of natural selection has been called dysgenics." with heading: repeat...this term is NOT applied as a descriptive except by those that embrace racism
 * 21:48, 10 November 2006, Code 46, Dysgenics is only recognized as a science by misinformed bigots (4 more)
 * 03:13, 4 January 2006, User talk:MONGO, I read AfD's...I read at over 300 words per minute...I didn't notice anything about a category you refer to. If you weren't a chicken shit you'd use a username. Clarify things for you?


 * 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"
 * 07:08, 12 November 2006, User talk:Morton devonshire, I encourage discussion, but not if it is going to be with someone who routinely works on articles that help him demonstrate his bigotry.
 * 12:01, 2 November 2006, User talk:Seabhcan, I'll do that when you find a way to let go of your overt bias against my country which interferes with your ability to apply occums razor and make sound editorial chioces based on a preponderance of the evidence and not evidence that supports your bigotry.
 * 22:55, 1 November 2006, User talk:Seabhcan, Once again, you deliberately seek out information to support your anti-American bias...a bias that was made plainly evident when you posted "dumb Americans" on your talk page.
 * 13:31, 1 November 2006, User talk:TDC, (Regarding Seabhcan), Next time he starts another anti-American POV push, let me know about it...About all he does is push an anti-American bias into article space and I'm about done with that. This editing  does not have to be tolerated from anyone, especially an administrator. Wikipedia has no room for bigots.


 * With Travb
 * 04:26, 8 September 2006, User talk:Travb, Trolling and harassment You have trolled and added many harassing comments today


 * With User:Thomas Basboll
 * 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."
 * 20:10, 23 September 2006, User talk:MONGO, You simply ask too much. I don't owe you an apology. Where's you apology to me for acting like a jerk when I asked you to stick to using standard cite templates? Move on


 * With User:Ronin.shinta
 * 21:05, 7 September 2006, User talk:MONGO, (Right after User:Ronin.shinta wrote a message with ED links on his page, nasty argument here User_talk:Ronin.shinta ensues ) My email is on...you got something to say...use that..and any trolls will have their IP identified and their ISP contacted.
 * 20:34, 7 September 2006, User talk:MONGO, revert trolling///repost and you're block


 * With User:alexjohnc3
 * 19:39, 7 September 2006, User talk:MONGO, (deleted all the comments of alexjohnc3 on talk page after alexjohnc3 argued about MONGO threatening to block him) remove trolling
 * 06:04, 18 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, Removed post with "apology"


 * With Freakofnurture, pschemp
 * 16:29, 15 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, "deleted more garbage about that piece of shit website and the jerks who contribute there" Deleted comments on his talk page from Freakofnurture, pschemp, calling them "jerks".


 * User:Einsidler
 * 07:15, 22 October 2006, User talk:Einsidler, It is obvious that you are an editor at ED...and you state clearly on your userpage that you prefer that website. Since your edits here are not much better than the average troll, I'll give you one hour to remove the links you have posted above, or I will block you in accordance with the above mentioned arbcom decision. Up to you. NOTE: This is a common strategy of MONGO, instead of removing the links etc himself, he tells others to remove them, otherwise they will be blocked by him.


 * User:Gwernol
 * 18 July 2006, Wikipedia talk:Vandalism I was archiving to rid the trolling...nothing wrong here...get a life.


 * User:Hardvice
 * 20:08, 18 July 2006, Wikipedia talk:Vandalism, MONGO wrote:   anyone trying to defend encyclopedia dramatica fits the definition of troll


 * Anon
 * 15 July 2006 User talk:MONGO, in response too "What the hell is with you removing all my comments from Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks? Is only one side of the argument allowed to be presented there?" : The zogby poll has been discussed elsewhere and is a misleading poll...Zogby should be ashamed of itself for even conducting it and the bias they demonstrated with the types of qeustioning they asked is appaling...as far as I am concerned, I'll never trust another Zogby poll again. It's you POV that makes you blind to this very fact.

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.

With User:Seabhcan

 * 19:48, 26 November 2006, User talk:MONGO, the wording of those comments, along with Seabhcans editing efforts, indicate to me a bias
 * 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 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.

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.
 * 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.
 * 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
 * 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. To User:Acebrock

With Thomas Basboll

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

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. Removed by MONGO
 * 07:56, 8 September 2006, User talk:Travb, Are you serious....are you so blind to your editing and edit summaries that you fail to understand that you did nothing but attack me and even an arbcom member? No doubt, you showed up at arbcom to pick a fight immediately after discussing matters with rootology...who spent yesterday attacking numerous wikipedians in the worst way he could....guess what that makes you look like? A supporter of a troll. I'm done talking with you...either an Rfc or I'll take this issue to arbcom.

With User:Striver

 * 07:23, 11 August 2006, User talk:Samir (The Scope), he creates these articles simply to be a pain...a kind of adolescent pain...

ANI complaints

 * 14:06, 22 October 2006 filed by User:Alecmconroy Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive142

User:CBDunkerson

 * 15:20, 16 November 2006, User talk:CBDunkerson, When User:CBDunkerson posted Civility on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, MONGOs response: Don't defend disruption Please don't go around defending disruption...its not like you haven't had your arguments with others, so linking me to a page I am well aware of is both insulting and unnecessary and you know that.

User:Yandma

 * 14:08, 15 November 2006, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, After User:Yandma criticizes the indefinete block of  Miltopia "Thanks for the support and I'll remember it." Veiled threat?

User:Zero g

 * 19:19, 13 November 2006, Negative selection, no, the term is NOT used as a descriptive, and continued claims that I am vandalizing will end up getting you blocked fro disruption
 * 12:22, 10 November 2006, Negative selection, no it isn't, unless you're a bigot  deleted: "also known as dysgenics." from "Some proponents of eugenics argue that medicine and other technological, societal, and cultural practices cause negative selection in humans, also known as dysgenics."

Phaedriel

 * 18:10, 31 July 2006, User talk:Jkelly I can assure you that the chance that a perfectionist like Phaedriel is going to err again with an image upload tag or whether it qualifies as fair use again is about zero.

User:Rootology

 * 16:54, 31 July 2006, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31, RE: ED, This nonsense is coming close to harassment and far supercedes any linked "wrongdoing" that was provided by those that brought this hostile Rfc against me.

Anonymous admin

 * 04:56, 27 October 2006, User talk:MONGO, User:Rootology was being instructed by someone here, claiming they were an admin, to not go digging about my IP when the arbcom case was in the evidence stage, so there is at least one Admin on Wiki who is a piece of shit.

User:Georgewilliamherbert

 * 21:27, 23 October 2006, User talk:Georgewilliamherbert, response to ANI  Your edits are prtedicatble...you wikistalk and make ridiculous accusations that are based partly on an inexperience in dealing with trolling and partly on some problem you must have with me. ...So here's the deal, you stop making wildly exaggerated misrepresentations of my motives and actions and start assuming good faith on my part, or I will be force to deal with your comments that oftentimes heighten the potential tensions and are harassment.
 * 13:48, 23 October 2006, User talk:Georgewilliamherbert, I will remind you that persistant questioning about the same thing over and over is disruption and that editor was clearly being disruptive on my talk page. When Georgewilliamherbert asks about the ED on MONGO's talk page.

WP:BITE
See MONGO's treatment of User:Pokipsy76 (less than 1000 edits)  above.


 * 20:12, 27 July 2006, User:Wiccamoon13, User:Ice Cold, Less than 500 edits: "this editor is not blocked...yet"

WikiProject Countering systemic bias
Tolerance of alternate views other than MONGO's own.
 * 14:51, 20 October 2006, User talk:Cerebral Warrior, completely agree with your comments about the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11...and frankly, I find the stupidity fo their comments to be trolling or at least borderline so...but the best thing to do is to not let them upset you.
 * 15:27, 20 October 2006, User talk:MONGO, RE: 9/11 articles, I find most of the comments by many that are POV pushing such crap are either trying to be provocative or are simply ignorant. In the case of the latter, our job is to ensure they become educated and in the case of the former, if they persist in disruption, then they end up getting blocked
 * 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.
 * 03:34, 1 April 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, Ending a discussion by dismissing everyones work (Note: despite what Mongo claims here, no-one was adding any 'junk science' and the prior discussion was even handed.)


 * A few people chiming in here with a sole intention of adding nonscientific mumbo jumbo to this article, are POV pushing.


 * 04:14, 1 April 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, Refusing to answer the question posed. Calling all opponents 'conspiracy theorists'


 * You're a conspiracy theorists and you have no facts...


 * 04:30, 1 April 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, Claims of inside knowledge WP:NOR


 * I do know a plane hit the pentagon...I work for USDHS.


 * 04:44, 1 April 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks,
 * Then go put that junk in the conspiracy theory page...saying how something looked is a bit POV, no? Gee...sure looks like controlled demolition...is not encyclopedic. I'm not neutral? How do you figure that? If I know the facts and a bunch on nonsense oushing POVer's come here and I do what I can to keep their nonsense out of an encyclopedic article, then I am ensuring a close following of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV.


 * 19:54, 1 April 2006, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, in response to: "You got People questioning the official American 9/11 account, and you say there is no controversy? All those people are not conspiracy theorist, many of them just dont buy the 9/11 Commissions account and whant a new and independent investigation."


 * You have zero facts.


 * 18:46, 6 June 2006, User talk:Striver, "POV pusher your nonsense is never going to go in the 9/11 articles. Never. If you continue to misuse wikipedia resources, you'll end up at arbcom and there will be dozens of people that will contribute to seeing you blocked from editing those types of articles. In all liklihood, there may also be an end to the fighting you also engage in on the Moslem related articles as well. You create POV forks constantly, spam other POV pushers with similar nonsense POV pushing agendas and have been incivil more times than I can count. There really isn't much more to say, aside from the fact that we can ignore you some, but in the end, if you continue, we will do what we have to do".
 * 20:32, 1 November 2006, User talk:Seabhcan, In response to: "American editors do not own the articles on their country or history. I see no reason to stop correcting the bias on those articles simply because I am not a citizen of that country." The sources you seem to come up with have a definitive anti-American slant to them.
 * 20:03, 1 November 2006, User talk:Seabhcan, In response to: Do you volunteer yourself a member of the category "dumb Americans who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history". I'm very sorry for you if that is the case. No, I don't, Seabhcan...what I ask of you is to stop insulting myself and other editors who don't appreciate your anti-American editing patterns.
 * 13:31, 1 November 2006, User talk:TDC, (Regarding Seabhcan), Next time he starts another anti-American POV push, let me know about it...About all he does is push an anti-American bias into article space and I'm about done with that. This editing  does not have to be tolerated from anyone, especially an administrator. Wikipedia has no room for bigots.
 * 15:25, 20 October 2006, Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center, in response to Google hits for the term by User:Sparkhead, So what...stop POV pushing nonsense

MONGO's behavior can be punished in this ArbCom
As per below :


 * "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."

In the first case against MONGO, Requests for arbitration/MONGO although MONGO was originally the focus of the investigation, brought by other users, two users were booted indefinently. So as Requests for arbitration/MONGO case shows clearly, other people can be sanctioned and booted even though the arbitration doesn't have their name on the wiki link page. Travb (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:

 * 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 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?" Who have I said is "harassing me?" What statements of mine that are clearly insulting have I defended as impossible to interpret insultingly? To draw any equivalence is abhorrent. MONGO, you're way, way, way over the line."

Background

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. As MONGO once wrote: "in reality, most great "truths" lie somewhere in the middle of where our own biases lay."

But over time, I saw a pattern with MONGO's edit behavior, which many here will agree with: MONGO has zero tolerance for different views then his own. For evidence of this, please see:

More importantly, MONGO liberally and abusively uses his administrative powers and AfDs to threaten and remove views that do not support his own. For evidence of this, please see:

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

JoshuaZ blocked me, I apologized in an email to JoshuaZ, and within less than 30 minutes JoshuaZ unblocked me. I removed the comment from the AfD. 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. Since this time 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 warring" with for the past 3 months.

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

Other users had emailed me about Rootology, disturbed 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 indefinitely banned and simply stand by and watch.

Rootology sent me a message that same day as I was blocked. User_talk:Travb/Archive_7 stating that he was "done". My first comment was to Rootlogy, asking if there was anything I can do to help. I started to delete the stupid WP:NPA violations by Rootology, told him to apologize, and told him to stop committing suicide. 

I quickly read over the workshop against MONGO, and I felt that MONGO was getting a free pass for his own violations of wikipolicy, see Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.

I attempted triage, knowing the chances for Rootology this late in the game were slim. I wrote my opinion on Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop criticizing what I saw as MONGO's free pass.

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, proceeded to my arbcom case and demanded disciplinary action be brought against me"
 * This is clearly not the case User_talk:Travb/Archive_7, 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.

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 Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop I stated: At first glance, from someone who has never looked at this case   I had very little familiarity with the case, other than to see all of MONGOs WP:NPA violations.

MONGO, please don't use my association with Rootology as Scarlet letter, I repeatedly told Rootology to stop. 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".'''

I was hardly defending Rootology's bad behavior. 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." This is hardly me defending Rootlogy.

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,, "

My comments to Fred and MONGO on Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop, nor did my subsequent comments later to MONGO and Fred, did not violate any wikipedia policy that I am familiar 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.

But I did keep the comments about MONGO was not punished for his own wikipedia violations on the Workshop page. I still feel this way. Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.

MONGO wrote: Travb then returned to the arbcom case to be disruptive

MONGO is referring to: Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop MONGO had not done a checkuser at the time against Badlydrawnjeff, but he was making a lot of accusations against Badlydrawnjeff. This is familiar behavior of MONGO. MONGO refused to answer questions I posted to him, when I persisted he called an ANI and began calling my names on my user page, in violation of WP:NPA.

Calling someone "disruptive", is a favorite accusation of MONGO, right behind calling other editors trolls. As he wrote here: "I will remind you that persistant questioning about the same thing over and over is disruption and that editor was clearly being disruptive on my talk page."

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

RE:
Morton has been accused by many editors of being a sockpuppet in the past, but that in no way excuses my check user.

The Morton Check user is the second checkuser I have used. The first was in Jan 2006, I believe.

Morton and I had been in a heated dispute for weeks on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. The article had survived an AfD, but was systematically being deleted by other users, including Morton. To attempt a comprimise, I had asked for a moderator on that page, I had set up a straw poll and RfC. There were several ANIs revolving around this article. I misread one edit by Morton, completly misread it. I then, incorrectly, filed a Checkuser. I was completly wrong, 100%, as Zerofaults, now NuclearUmpf pointed out too me (thank you). I was quite embarrased by my checkuser against MORTON, and felt that it made me look like a food (which it did). I was doubly careful not to make the same mistake again.

I hate to bring this up, because Zer0faults and I have gotten along better lately, but I think it is vital to defend myself: I was very careful not to file another checkuser, until a new user NuclearUmpf, put one of my articles up for deletion, after I voted opposite him in an AfD. Sean Black closed the AfD calling it "trolling". Come to find out, after a checkuser, [Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NuclearUmpf|NuclearUmpf was Zerofaults]. As far as "outing" other wikiusers, I did later "out" Zerofaults.

As far as Morton, I was completely wrong in MORTONs case, (similar to MONGO and his "Occam Razor threat" above). But unlike MONGO, I sincerly apologized to all parties involved.

I find it ironic that MONGO claims that I "out" my opponents, when he has accused several wikiusers he is in disputes with of being sockpuppets, and often blocks users first, then waits for the evidence. As MONGO said himself to a user with less than 1000 edits:


 * "Do you have proof that....is a sock or something along those lines? If not, then you need to slow down"...you better start assuming good faith soon ... but there does seem to be an issue with WP:BITE in which (the admin) seems to not have recognized that you are a newer contributor who isn't aware of our policies...

Re:

 * Re: Kelly Martin comment. I was asking a question, and I have removed that comment since MONGO brought it to my attention. Thank you MONGO.
 * RE: "pushing your own POV"  If I am too be punished by the ArbCom committee for stating that someone is pushing their POV, please keep in mind that MONGO has said the exact same thing numerous times (7 times in November alone) and should be punished equally.
 * RE: "Notice how the "official" version adovates of 9/11 (most notably MONGO) are voting to delete this article" this full comment MONGO states: "resulting in being blocked for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations " As I mentioned above, I have already been punished for this WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violation, JoshuaZ unbooted me less than 1/2 hour later, and I sincerly apologized to MONGO for those comments.  Where is MONGO's apology for anything he has said? After he called users bigots, racists, jerks, etc...?

RE:
Tbeatty's defense of MONGO paints a wide brush, and based on the above evidence is clearly unconvincing. Does Tbeatty really believe that everyone of the editors that MONGO fought with above is a ED troll?

Tbeatty ignores a really apparrent question: Why is MONGO so hated by everyone at ED? I have never seen an admin (other than the late User:Kelly Martin), who makes so many editors so angry on wikipedia. Why?

Going through thousands of MONGO's edits, a picture has emerged to explain why. IMO, I think it is because MONGO says many nasty things to editors which clearly violates WP:NPA. He threatens to use and misues his admin tools against other editors.

When MONGO calls other editors Bigots, Racists, trolls, etc, he is bound to get editors angry at his comments.

Am I justifying the behavior of all of these editors? No. I have told editors on ED to erase the MONGO page, (I used the same user name as here) and I have told MONGO that I feel it is terrible what ED is doing to him.

Tbeatty, it is absurd to imply that every editor in the past two years who MONGO has been in an argument with has been involved with ED. To claim that every editor has been would blacklist hundreds of wikieditors. McCarthy would be proud.

Remember, it does take "It Takes Two To Tango". MONGO's ED page did not spontaneously pop up overnight. Anger towards MONGO did not suddenly, magically appear, with no background history.

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…

MONGO quotes

 * 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) Context. -- Lovelight 13:48, 6 December 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 Seabhcan quotes

Well you've seen some of my favorite Mongo quotes, 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 might be biased due to nature of my MONGO experience, but I'll let you folks be the judge of that…

*note

I've seen some new perspectives and there is need to state clearly… what I did here is simple share of my personal MONGO experience. That experience is in no way related with experiences of other "MONGO users". I have little or no correspondence and have never worked with other editors who added evidence to this dispute. Looking into some of the written statements I'd say that MONGO experience may vary, but it's basically the same…

Humor?
Unfortunately, it came to my attention that there is some peculiar form of humor swirling through Wikipedia, something about clowns? I honestly wouldn’t know anything about such circus, but as it happens it did land right on my talk page, causing enormous mess (and stress) there. As you may well notice, it's related to many editors involved in this case… but I'm sure that they'll provide good, valid or humorous arguments and dismiss such serious allegations. To make things crystal clear, I have no relation with this taunt message and I would definitely restrain myself from forming opinions. However, that link resulted with me being blocked, so I've decided to provide it here, for your consideration... Well, there is only hope that presenting this, yet another unorthodox evidence won't result with another block, and I would like to assure you that I have no intention to post that link anywhere else… Lovelight 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to NuclearUmpf

I'm not sure why you've formulated your conclusion with: "I later stepped in, removing the information without incident." But I would like to state clearly, incident was avoided because of my patience, definitely not because of your "humorous" involvement which led to my block. I'm honestly surprised by your escapade. Lovelight 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to MONGO

Harassing? To put things in perspective… anyone may verify that I have no time to take a proper care of my talk page, and I'm not really sure why would my reaction be puzzling? Several editors have rampaged over there, reverting without my knowledge forcing me to go through history just to see what I missed there? I stated clearly, I would have remove that edit myself, and I surely didn’t try to revert it more then once (correct me if I'm wrong). Of course that I find such behavior interesting if not annoying… and of course that I'm not here to be blocked over the issues which I really don't want to recognize or become familiar with… Lovelight 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

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

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.
 * Update: Looking at the link again, I can't tell whether Seabhcan actually called opposing editors "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists" or whether Tom is just using those terms as examples of accusations that would be unacceptable if made. TheronJ 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 ,

MONGO has repeatedly violated Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias WP:Civil and WP:NPA
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 re-interpret and evaluate 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.



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! 

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.
 * 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.

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. 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

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)

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 at whose hands he himself continues to suffer 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. More importantly, this was posted by Seabhcan on his user page to explain his absence; if the people here take umbrage, then they can simply not open the page!  This is not incitement of others to injustice (as M.Devonshire's "Targetted Pages" list is), nor an affirmation of unacceptable intent.  The suggestion that this somehow is worse than MONGO calling people "chicken shit" -- or Devonshire himself libelling public figures for sport -- is mere posturing.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 right 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 MONGO's labelling 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:

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 might as well throw dice to predict 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 ; 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 grammatical 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

I would also like to point out one other thing:

MONGO does not really deny any of the charges made against him, here. Instead of saying that he is not biased, or that he has not really angered people, or that he does not fight for a very pro-American viewpoint, or that he edits with only an opinion about facts, their quality, and their reliability, he says:


 * That he is "blunt", and a "skeptic", and so his discourtesy to others is excusable
 * He is justified in angering people, because they are "bad" (paraphrase, but accurate: not "collaborative", a "vandal", or "banned", or "lack of evidence")
 * He disapproves of "bullshit", or "junk"
 * That he has privileges when it comes to evaluating content in English, and
 * That he has greater privileges when it comes to evaluating content that deals with the U.S.A.
 * He claims that other editors are "Out for Revenge" or "retributive" (hardly good faith, no?)
 * That Tony Sidaway, Ryan Freisling, "Derex", "Rama", "Kizzle", and others are "friendly"
 * That his Adminship passed, so the qualifications voiced are all now irrelevant (but are they?)

I ask the Wikipedia Arbcom: is this the stuff of which a defense is made?

These are the excuses of a bad cop. There is nothing more here than sidestepping the problem: MONGO makes editing Wikipedia a distinctly, personally unpleasant experience, and he feels he is justified in this behavior because he has well-respected "friends" and "supporters". He feels that the power conferred by his Adminship now absolves him of any responsibility to consider the objections and worries of those who questioned its original wisdom. He apparently feels that his judgment alone is all that is required to definitively classify this or that fact as valid. He has stated quite plainly that his status as an American uniquely qualifies him to evaluate the assertions of foreign critics.

I have no doubt that MONGO is a valuable editor, who has made priceless (and i mean that literally) contributions to the National Parks sections. This is, after all, his vocation and specialty. I am very happy -- proud, even -- that his contributions stand there as the doorway through which many, many people will enter and experience our National Parks.

Yet i am equally doubtless that MONGO is inhibiting valuable and equally priceless dialogue on powerfully significant political issues. I regret that he chooses to over-reach his specialty in this fashion; but more than that, i resent and am shamed by the results his pride has worked. I have had to fight now on two pages where people of this cabal have worked to stifle content. Amongst my edits, there are perhaps five total pages. I -- who have little experience tracking bears or deer -- have no interest in quibbling over the content of the Yellowstone or Yosemite pages; similarly, i would expect the same courtesy on the State Terrorism page from someone who doesn't speak a foreign language and has no interest in travelling abroad.

MONGO, amidst his specialty, is undoubtedly a conscientious and valuable editor. Unfortunately, MONGO has chosen to force his authority onto pages whose content is the most popular political cause du jour. While i admit that he has been, in some cases, a steadying force for good, it is more than apparent -- proven by the very existence of this RfA -- that he has overstepped the bounds of responsible administration to challenge the very foundations of Wikipedia philosophy.

Seabhcan is nothing more than a young man who loses his temper. This RfA, however, is the cold calculation of a manipulative administrator, out for blood, looking to call retribution upon an imagined offense to his Patriotism.

It is disgusting. Stone put to sky 17:47, 7 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:

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. MONGO then took the issue to AN/I when DCM objected to the request. An admin then chimed in KillerChihuahua with his opinion backing MONGO's statement. Eventually the AN/I discussion concluded it seems that the link was fine and MONGO apologized to the user.

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:

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)

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)
 * Second issue:


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

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.

In reply to CBDunkerson
I want to follow up without changing the above so everyone else's sections still make sense. First it turns out by examining pokipsy76's edit history that they were taking part in revert wars with numerous people across a few different articles. Examining the history from the beginning of May to the block date of June 18 shows numerous reverts with edit summaries of "revert" or "revert (name)" I believe this constant reverting is not covered by my above statement nor CBDunkerson's and shows further why the situation led to a block, the user was reverting numerous users across a number of different articles, 6 at my count: TruthSeeker1234, Mongo, Morton Devonshire, MMX1, Tom Harrison, Jersey Devil & DCAnderson. All the articles related to 9/11, in the majority I do not see anyone agreeing with them or their edits by supporting their versions.

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. 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.
 * 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

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==== Note: Much of the information regarding cplot was removed by Travb, so the dates and section may no longer correspond.

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 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:
 * Violating block by editing the talk page:
 * Cplot sockpuppet request list + evidence of association:

One of these is particularly venomous, yet required to see what kind of editor cplot was: ... 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. The further claim that this was a case of WP:BITE is in fact wrong as cplot had been editing Wikipedia since May 2006, with well over 500 edits under this belt.

Travb's - WP:AGF : September 11, 2001
It should be noted that noone on the 9/11 article actually supports Lovelight and much like cplot can sometimes understand what they are talking about reffering to. They often refuse to provide sources and simply state XYZ should be in the article without stating why. In the instance given Lovelight is arguing against ... well everyone ... that the Iraq War should have a section in the 9/11 article. Everyone, including Mongo, is attempting to explain to them that the article is on the events of the day and should stay restricted to that as their are many other articles related to 9/11 that have to do with after affects, conspiracy theories, world views on it, the war on terror, the affects on the war on terror, the iraq war and its effects, justfication, legalities etc. However Lovelight simply continues to argue that it should be included against concensus.

First hand account of issue
The truth of the matter is that people who believe in conspiracy theories regarding this day have routinely had trouble with the concept of reliable sources and verifiable ones. They believe that the events of that day are not as popularly believed and want a larger section for their views, this would be fine under most circumstances and people have been willing to oblige by this, the problem is when its crunch time to write up something for the community to look at. The sources if any are even given are often far from reliable; blogs, 9/11 truth scholars website, etc. I have ended up on the side of Lovelight only once regarding a very nice blog that just highlites the events of 9/11 and surrounding days. However the problem is the information is dated, while yes on Day X it was believed person Y was a terrorist and noted so in Paper N, there is never followups it seems to correct information at one point believed and later proven false, which is what bothers some people. While I say if its reliable sources and meets V its fine, some do not agree because it does not attempt to check itself and its not technically itself a WP:RS source, meaning it just copies and pastes from them. The issue then becomes of if the information is altered or not etc. I hope this brings some context to the issue.

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. 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 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. 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".

Travb's - "WP:AGF:With CamperStrike"
This section is no longer relevant, Travb has since withdrawn this evidence. It should also be noted that CamperStrike has been indef blocked

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.

Travb's - "WP:BITE section"
It should be noted that User:Ice Cold was blocked indef as a admitted sockpuppet.

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", User Peter Grey then responded by posting the definition of terrorism to counter this arguement, and Mongo in agreement with Peter Grey stated the above. The article still says "terrorist attacks."
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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. 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"

Lovelight's - "Humor?"
It should be noted that a confirmed sockpuppet master, cplot, posted the message on Lovelight's page and accused numerous editors, myself included, of being "federal contractors" with the goal to "maintain a slanted POV for Whitehouse officials." This list included 9 editors, including 1 Arbitrator. This information was first removed from Lovelights page by an admin, Musical Linguist, and later put back by Lovelight. Regebro then asked then to remove this information from their talk page as it included frivolous allegations against numerous editors, including them. Lovelight refused to do so. I later stepped in, removing the information without incident.

Mongo's - "Seabhcan has misused his admin tools"
The first item mentioned regarding placing the page under protection for the purposes or removing the 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: 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", 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.

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: 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.", which is quite a shame.

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 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)

Must keep the center of attention of this arbitration where it belongs
Rather than rehash the same evidence provided by MONGO and Morton Devonshire, which are more than adequate to represent my view on this arbitration, I will save the arbitrators time in not giving you something you have already seen. I have only a few dealings directly with Seabhcan, one where he was harassing an editor and I asked him to stop his insults, and also where he is insulting against MONGO on the same talk page later on. This type of behavior is not without a cost - the time spent dealing with this problem could have been used instead for building this project, and building it correctly.

Several editors here are presenting evidence against MONGO, it is obvious they disagree with him and the other users they label as a cabal (even I am classified as such). Travb above admits: "MONGO and I have been in a long term dispute…" and sides with Seabhcan. Users Stone put to sky, Lovelight, and a few others side with him as well, so they want to show that this arbitration was initiated by someone with malicious intent. This is not the case. After the recent RfC done for Seabhcan, it is obvious that MONGO, Tom Harrison, Morton Devonshire, myself and others involved have not been able to reason with Seabhcan in getting him to maintain an acceptable level of civility.

Examples where past attempts to reason with Seabhcan have failed pertaining to the civility issues
In addition to my appeal to Seabhcan to not belittle others (linked in paragraph above), others have asked him to stop as examples illustrate below:

Example 1
"…my name is not 'Monty' -- if you wish to shorten it, call me Mort, Morty, Matt or MD Lastly, please refrain from personal characterizations such as "obsession" -- it's not appropriate on Wikipedia to make ad hominem attacks. I know you have been warned about this before -- I do not wish to bring an Rfc or Arbcom case against you…" Morton Devonshire 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Response from Seabhcan: (later in the thread, after I warned him to stop) "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…" Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Example 2
"I and others have asked you before on several occasions to stop this kind of thing…You actions have made it harder for all of us to work on what are already difficult pages. Please, stop now." Tom Harrison 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Response from Seabhcan: "…I don't believe these editors are here for the betterment of wikipedia. I think they edit here to push their personal POV…I won't stop seeing the elephant in the room." Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Example 3
In reference to the message Seabhcan left on his userpage about "dumb Americans" Text from warning template: "…Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users…Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing…" Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Response from Seabhcan: "It is not personal. Does it mention you? No. Bye." Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC) and futher into thread: "I realised that you are a poor specimen of your nation, and I shouldn't fault all your people four your personal failures." Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Example 4
"...what I ask of you is to stop insulting myself and other editors who don't appreciate your anti-American editing patterns…" MONGO 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Response from Seabhcan: "...I standby all my edits to articles. If you find truth to be anti-american, then I suggest you examine your self-identity and why you rely on myth for your personal satisfaction…" Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:13, 1 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, or rehash old Encyclopedia Dramatica battles, then "fill your boots" as the Canadians say, but this Arbcom is primarily about Seabhcan.


 * "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
 * "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
 * "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
 * "Oh, but pushing Mo-ty's buttons is so easy and fun. You should try. Its addictive." 21:57, 17 November 2006
 * "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
 * "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.
 * 13:15, 8 October 2006 edit summary "Saint Mongo of Factoid has pronounced upon this topic, but not yet blessed us with a holy citation, let us pray this will be improved in future"
 * "I 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
 * 08:50, 21 July 2006 "I think you need a holiday - or a psychiatrist."
 * "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
 * "Ha ha. Mongo - I don't doubt that you 'spread lies', as you put it, in your spare time."11:13, 20 July 2006
 * "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
 * "(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
 * "I think its a fair comment given your recent trolling and accusations of 'junk science'. "[referring to MONGO]20:18, 30 April 2006
 * "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."
 * 11:46,10 November 2006 edit summary ". . . Please learn something about European history before you edit."
 * "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
 * "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.
 * ". . . 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.)"
 * ". . . Doing that makes you seem dishonest, when perhaps, you are merely lazy." 14:45, 10 November 2006
 * "Thats daft. First . . ." (referring to Tbeatty's reasoning in the previous paragraph) 17:29, 13 November 2006
 * "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)
 * 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
 * "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
 * "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)
 * "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
 * "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 CamperStrike
Mongo is very possessive about any article he touches and if someone edits anything or adds a link he will go back and delete it (revert it) back to his own last version. No one according to his rules is allowed to change an article. Except for him. Any information that is added by anyone but him he feels is unnecessary. When Mongo disagreed with me he followed me around wikipedia visting articles he had not edit history with and reverted and deleted several articles that I had edited or started. . Wiki user Mongo always goes against the general consensus of the Article discussion page and takes dramatic and drastic actions on his own terms with out the consent of any of the major contributors. He is more hindrance than help to the wiki-community.

He really thinks he is hot stuff because he constantly re-sizes images and brags about small contibutions to a in a "Featured Article" that may have never been featured before. Very egotistical

I am new to wikipedia and still have a lot to learn. But I do understand that this is a community project and USER:Mongo will often go out of his way and disrupt past progressive work done by the wiki-community with out ever using the discussion pages. I feel that he has over used his administrative powers in order to shape articles the way that he wants them.

Sincerely,

CamperStike

Explanation of anonymity
Near the end of November, I received an e-mail message asking how one would go about submitting evidence if one wished to avoid any possible retaliation. I agreed to post such evidence here.

Denial of conflict of interest
I am simply copying part of an e-mail message I recieved. I make no allegations regarding it in any way &mdash; it may be true or false; it may be accurate or misleading; I will take it into consideration just as I will take all other evidence into consideration. I will not recuse myself from this case because I received it before copying it here.

The anonymous source asserts:
most of the diffs have been presented at this point and there is no need to rehash the instances a second or third or fourth or eighth time at this point. however thre is a point in time where we have to ask what the line is. that seibchan has been rude and incivil is without question and an argument that he abused the tools can be made. what of mongo? when he was promoted there were many opposes regarding his attitude. examples include "he was consistently belligerent and confrontational with multiple editors (including myself). Moreover, much of his confrontation was around him pushing very POV political opinions." and "MONGO spent a lot of time arguing (and edit warring) about which usernames were allowed on its membership roster, leading eventually to the page being protected" and the evidence from mr tibbs such as "inflammatory statements in the Edit Summary like: "It looks like foreigners and leftists wish to control this page....good luck!"" the warnings were not heeded by the majority of voters and they ended up coming true. his pov pushing rudeness and oftentimes abuse of tools is well documented before the encyclopedia dramatica incident and continued during the incident. following the incident he seemed to take the "excessive zeal" free pass to heart judging by his acitons criticised by georgewilliamherbert at the noticeboard and coninuing where he left off in terms of anger and pushing the rules and his own pov. he even speaks in contradictory tones now claiming that he can cooperate with people he was in dispute with and follows the rules but cannot find the time or willpower to enter mediation with badlydrawnjeff going as far as lying about badlydrawnjeffs attitude and contributions which violates wikis civility policies  at some point something needs to be done about all administrators who abuse power not just the ones who have friends willing to back them up which mongo has and seibchan does not. it is even to the point now where myself who is a longterm editor who was not involved in conflict with mongo doesnt feel comfortable speaking out with my name for fear of retribution. wikipedia is not a battleground and mongo makes it one with his pov pushing and tool abuse. mongo is all about defending eachother but is perfectly willing to attack another admin lie about another editor and stays silent when another editor is attacked on an offwiki website because the person who attacked and the person who pasted the attack onwiki are his friends. please do somehting.

Response to MONGO

 * i will let the facts about your actions speak for themselves but some clarification on the last note. you accuse many of not sticking up for you when you were attacked but did not do so when other editors were attacked in a close fashion and kellymartin and cyde are ppl you have had a good repor with in the past. it is my beleif that you do not follow through when it comes to your claim that you are against such things. Cunderpants 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by geologyguy
I'm very peripheral to this and am only involved slightly in the article Yellowstone National Park, regarding which I simply wish to echo MONGO's observations and to support his actions there. Thanks. Geologyguy 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan is a tedentious editor
Seabhcan has a certain view of the world that he continuously tries to insert into articles. Previous examples clearly show this. He also belittles editors that do not share this view again shown above. The result is that discussions quickly devolve into personal confrontations rather than the objective of building the encyclopedia.

Anti-American prejudice
Complaining that participants in AfD discussion are of American heritage.

MONGO continues to be beset by ED trolls
No matter what articles MONGO edits, somehow ED trolls manage to wiggle in. One only has to follow the comments from the sockpuppets of User:Cplot to see the disgusting references and personal attacks previously addressed by this committee. MONGO does the project a service by banning these trolls and stops the disruption. Some editors including Seabhcan appear to employing the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy and give refuge and comfort to these trolls simply because they taunt MONGO. They do this at the expense of the project.

{user:CamperStrike has used sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia and to evade blocks}
I am an uninvolved with this case, but I noticed that User:CamperStrike was involved in an arbitration case and I thought it was my duty to inform the arbitrators that User:CamperStrike has been indefinitely banned for using sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia and to evade blocks. Please give a read for evidence of User:CamperStrike's disruption of Wikipedia. Dionyseus 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Difficult to talk to MONGO
I am an advocate from AMA for cplot. Mongo presents difficulty to discuss the issue of cplot and finally I have found my way here after receiving an email from cplot.

Cplot was blocked in a spit or rage and an edit war of 9/11
and removing communication attempts from cplot on his user page.
 * User cplot attempted to contact MONGO on numerous occasions regarding alleged hostility of MONGO.
 * MONGO escalated the situation by being rude
 * He then blocked him, according to WP:Block, in a contreversial block because he was involved in a content dispute regarding the article September 11, 2001 attacks
 * According to WP:Block "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. 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!)"
 * Even when blocking cplot there was aggressio (rubing in the face that he has been blocked) and even betting in a gamely fashion on when he'll be back to "disrupt") *Doesn't this go against the wikipedia spirit, inciting someone to do wrong? I would take this as a personal attack!
 * To me it appears as though MONGO blocked CPLOT in the first place because of some contreversial addition of a category called [usebaca].
 * Instead of just changing this alleged mistake that happened Mongo asked Cplot to remove it in a rude manner.
 * The prejucial effect of using Cplot's 3RR in MONGO's 1 week block outweighted the wiki-rules judicial effect. Essentially MONGO blocking him on this latest count is highly prejucial and I put it to you it was done in anger! Seriously, blocking someone for "ADDING A CATEGORY TO A TALK PAGE! Come ON!" You blocked him because of the escalating uncivility which was occuring inbetween each other.
 * Again, According to WP:Block MONGO's actions are not the encouraged. This biased bloking, as suggested by the user cplot himself, was simply based on my clients past rapport and the lack of ability to properly communicate.
 * The 9/11 was so contreversial that even the discussion page was locked during the POV dispute.
 * Cplot placed a request for POV template addition to the article. (Which has been added). nevertheless he has been gang up on: with rude comments essentially telling him to fuck off. "...you want to add YOUR POV to the article. Please stop trying that. It is pointless and takes uses time and energy that could be used to improve the article and improve wikipedia. --Regebro 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" Instead of concentrating on trying to suppress cplot perhaps wild conspiracies perhaps you should be a little friendlier in helping him (or in your case disprove) prove how he can add properly cited WP:CITE material for building an article which is evenly balanced in POVs.
 * Though they both played escalating roles in this revenge, trully Mongo wanted to give the last hit with a revengeful BLOCK!

Mongo stalks the edits on the cplots user page

 * Mongo stalks the edits Cplot does on his own user page! (that he used to be able to do... now he can't even do that because his talk page has been protected)

Personal Attacks
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.

signed: --CyclePat 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by CBDunkerson
I have been trying to have minimal contact with MONGO to avoid our past disagreement growing into an ongoing feud. However, I seem to be quoted/referenced repeatedly in the evidence above and some of that presented (not by MONGO) is grossly inaccurate and defamatory towards an innocent party. Ergo, a few clarifications are in order;

Pokipsy76 was blocked by MONGO with NO justification
NuclearUmpf argues in 7.1.1 that Tom Harrison and pschemp upholding MONGO's block of Pokipsy76 (and, in pschemp's case, protecting his talk page) shows that the block was valid. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let us look at the actual incident rather than 'inferring' things based solely on the names/status of the individuals involved (a deadly poison IMO);

This was the series of edits leading up to MONGO's block on Pokpsy76;
 * MONGO reverts to restore recently added words 'conspiracy theorists'
 * Pokipsy76 reverts MONGO
 * Tom Harrison inserts 'conspiracists'
 * Pokipsy76 changes to 'independent researchers'
 * MONGO reverts

At that point MONGO also blocked Pokipsy76 for "trolling" with a clearly abusive/far from impartial block message. MONGO also specifically stated that the block was for reverting him (calling Pokipsy76 a troll in the process), threatened to block for a week if Pokipsy76 reverted him even one more time, and later claimed that there were grounds for an indefinite block of Pokipsy76. A review of Pokipsy76's edits in the months leading up to this incident shows no 'disruption' on his part more significant than the above.

There was no justification for a block on Pokipsy76. None. This was not just a block ON someone the admin was in dispute with... it was specifically FOR daring to dispute them... which is a gross and fundamental violation of adminship. That it was 'upheld' by two admins, the first of them himself involved in the same content dispute, was a travesty. Abuse by three admins subsequently painted as 'proof' that it is 'correct' for admins to block users who disagree with them. In my view the text used by MONGO and Tom Harrison was clearly POV, but even if you accept the claim that having Wikipedia itself (not some sourced third party) dismiss individuals as "conspiracy theorists" is 'neutral' it remains clear that not everyone is going to agree with that assessment and thus reversion of such is a legitimate content dispute rather than "trolling" or "vandalism" as MONGO called it. Note that this incident pre-dates the whole 'Encyclopedia Dementica' brouhaha and is wholly unrelated to it. This was how MONGO treated a regular user with no previous blocks, no history of vandalism, no trolling behaviour, et cetera... a user blocked because they disagreed with MONGO and nothing more.

That said, MONGO did acknowledge (and notes above) that he should not have placed blocks on Pokipsy76 and two other users while he was in dispute with them. I think he should also have acknowledged that the block on Pokipsy76 was simply unwarranted, but that was unlikely with numerous admins supporting him... to his own detriment IMO.

Reply to NuclearUmpf
A full analysis of the history shows that similar reversions and edit summaries were being performed BY MONGO, Tom Harrison, and others... and contrary to what you say there were several others supporting Pokipsy76's changes, both in the edit warring and extensive discussions on the talk pages. The point however is that we seldom block for this sort of 'slow motion edit warring', even when it occurs on multiple pages. Maybe after some form of dispute resolution has been attempted with a neutral mediator and specific warnings to avoid edit warring... MAYBE a 24 hour block might be issued for a '1RR violation' (which is what this was)... but a 48 hour block with zero warning issued by an admin who was every bit as guilty of the edit warring 'offense' as the person they were blocking? No. Completely and utterly unjustified. MONGO specifically stated that he blocked Pokipsy76 for reverting him... and that is something which we must never allow an admin to do. Users are ALLOWED to revert admins. Indeed, if the admin is characterizing various people as 'conspiracy theorists' on multiple pages I'd say that removing this POV language is the right thing to do... but even if you somehow think that wording is 'neutral' other users are still allowed to believe otherwise and revert it. Blocking them for that is amongst the most egregiously wrong things an admin can do. Pokipsy76 did nothing that was a blockable offense under normal circumstances. He edit warred. Just as MONGO himself was doing. Any admin so strict that they block for 1RR violation would have blocked MONGO (who also did so) as well. But that is not what happened here. MONGO used his admin powers to 'win' an edit war by blocking his opponent. And that cannot be allowed. --CBD 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's 'bad acts' are widely supported
As noted above, MONGO was largely excused of any but minor wrongdoing by numerous admins in the Request for comment stemming from the Pokipsy76 incident. It has also been noted that the ArbCom in a previous case characterized MONGO's actions only as "excessive zeal". 'Zeal' is potentially over-determined effort along the proper path. To so describe MONGO's actions was a grave mistake on the ArbCom's part. Stating that his, 'violations of civility standards and normal administrative restraints and procedures were forgivable under the trying circumstances' would have been more reasonable. MONGO did things he should not have in the Pokipsy76 case... and the ED case. By failing to SAY so the admin community and the ArbCom have allowed these problems to continue. MONGO is a generally good admin who sometimes acts VERY improperly when he is angry... with active encouragement to do so by some admins and arbitrators. This leads to blatant mistreatment of users like the Pokipsy76 case above, great anger towards MONGO and Wikipedia building into the whole ED campaign, and ongoing disruption and conflict.

MONGO was wrong. Failing to say that because he is 'a good guy' is an even greater wrong... to all of Wikipedia and indeed MONGO himself.

What are the allegations against me?

 * Abuse of Admin power?
 * Protecting a page

I contest this. I protected a page where I had previously reverted vandalism and corrected spellings. I had never made any large edits to the page or added content. I was not protecting a favoured version - I was pausing an edit war. I believe this is permitted under the rules.


 * Editing a protected page

I contest this too. The rules say that an admin can correct a gross error on a protected page if he first asks for comments on the talk page. I did this as I wanted to remove 3 misleading words from one sentence. My note on the talk page encouraged a reply from the user who added the words in the first place. That user admitted he had added the words to mislead and push his POV. I removed the words. I stand by this edit.


 * Threatening to block Mongo

I disagree that this was improper. Mongo had twice reverted material without discussion or a reply to request for clarification. I warned him not to do it again, and as this would have been a breach of 3RR, it would have been correct for him to be blocked. Luckily, the warning did get his attention and he lowered himself to the level of discussing his reverts on the talk page.

Our sole Arbitrator has just made the allegation that I "repeated insertion and mischaracterization of information from unreliable sources". However, Fred admits that he has no evidence of this and maintains that he merely thinks it to be true.
 * Adding unreliable sources

Unfortunately, I cannot contest Fred's secret thoughts. I have to deal with evidence.

I agree I have been uncivil. However, I put this down to "excessive zeal" in dealing with uncivil editors who delete sourced material and push their personal nationalistic POV. Proof below in Context section.
 * Incivility

This is nonsense. I am not anti-American or anti-anybody else. All the diffs above are taken out of context. In them I was expressing my frustration with editors who bring their nationality to the table when they edit. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and an international project. I firmly believe that any editor who offers an opinion such as "Any American citizen can recognize the phony 9/11 bull." is a problem. When I edit articles on my home country I don't post such, frankly, insulting and ethno-centric replies to questions from editors from other countries.
 * Anti-somebody editing/attitude/beliefs

Have I forgotten something?
 * Anything else?

Context (copy/paste from RfC)

 * My defense -- the context.

Yes I have been uncivil at times to users such as Morton Devonshire, Mongo, TDS, Tbeaty, and a few others. This is not because I disagree with these users. It is because these users have been consistently trollish and abusive towards me and my work. As a counter example, I often disagree with Tom Harrison, yet he is a perfectly civil user and our conversations are often productive. The same cannot be said for some of the other users. This group of editors patrol Wikipedia looking for information to which they object for nationalistic reasons, no matter how well researched or referenced. Evidence suggests that they find these articles by wikistalking certain editors. They also seem to play as an organised 'tag team', taking turns to revert so as not to break the 3RR. They communicate off-wiki by e-mail. Morton maintains a list of his team, although the hard core are fewer in number. Update: Morty currently seems to be engaged in a 'get out the vote' drive that would make the republicans proud.


 * The Gladio Dispute

The article on Operation Gladio was started in November 2004. It grew gradually over the following months with contributions from many different editors. Tom Harrison made a number of very helpful contributions through 2004, 2005. . By October 2006 the article had grown into a huge, if disorganised, article with over 60 references and external links. I was aware of the article but did not edit until recently - and then only to add sources or revert vandalism. After this the following editors began attempts to strip the article down without regard to research or fact.


 * Morton Devonshire -- Hoax notice 1, attacks sources (StateWatch - this site hosted copies of old newspaper articles), attacks sources, Hoax notice 3, rm 90% of article - reverted by AntiVandalBot,
 * Tbeatty -- Hoax notice 4, rm material, again - saying its a 'conspiracy',
 * Intangible -- rv 1 Hoax notice 2, rm sourced material - says its conspiracy theory, rm material - edit summary 'this is bullocks',
 * Brimba -- rm StateWatch, notice 6 - not 'hoax' this time but 'totallydisputed',
 * Sockpuppet? - hoax notice 5


 * Daniele Ganser

This cabal of editors has also made it their mission to attack the work and character of Dr. Daniele Ganser and force removal of all mention of him. This is clearly because Ganser's work is a peer-reviewed academic source from a top university. Morton Devonshire maintains a list of articles which reference Ganser in the hope of removing them all. TDC attacks Ganser's character, baselessly calling him an antisemite,. Morton Devonshire has repeated this accusations many times on talk pages. TDC has removed reference to Ganser based on this imagined antisemitism. These editors have never given a credible reason for judging Ganser's work unreliable. They first claimed it was unreliable because Ganser joined ST9/11.org two years after publication. This turned out not to be true, so they moved on to attacking his character. Many times I and other users   have politely asked them why and they refuse to answer, instead invoking their 'tag team' skills to change the subject.

Even after Ganser was removed from one article, Morton Devonshire removed vast amounts of other referenced material while leaving a misleading edit summary claiming the material was Ganser related. When this is reverted, the tag team again comes in and removes it again, and again.

They have yet to give an explanation of why this peer reviewed source is unacceptable. Seeing that they have had months to provide this and have refused, my benefit-of-the-doubt assumption of good faith is wearing thin.


 * Closing

I was considering using Mongo's defense when he was called on incivil editing, when he said "There comes a point that some editors do indeed exhaust the communities patience" and
 * It's like this you see...ask once, the answer is "no". Ask twice, the answer is "NO". Ask a third time and the answer is "NO!" The fourth time and it becomes "Are you hard of hearing? NO way!" Of course there is a fifth and it becomes, "NO WAY! NEVER! Stop asking!" Eventually the response (after incessant badgering about the same old tired nonsense)..."You must be an idiot!"...see WP:V and WP:RS--MONGO 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But I think he went too far when he said "I offer no apology and I offer no respite and intend to insult you and others" - although the real bias in Wikipedia was shown when he was not punished for this admission of an incivil mission. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by SalvNaut

 * 12:12, 23 September 2006, Mongo, apart from using AfD to solve NPOV problems with perfectly legitimate article, falsly suggesting that his arguments were dismissed, provides his description of SalvNaut:
 * "Misuse of Wikipedia to push conspiracy theory propaganda such as this makes folks like yourself nothing but problem editors. I mean look at the singular focus you and the rest of the cruftists have...a blind man could see that your agenda is to POV push conspiracy theory nonsense...you hardly edit anything else. You're not fooling anyone.".
 * I consider this to be very uncivil: accussations of some sort of agenda and pushing nonsense and being problem editor. One edits on Wikipedia what he wants. I always do my best to do this in a proper way, provide sources and write NPOV style. Mongo often refers ad hominem, not to the arguments. --SalvNaut 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 12:46, 23 November 2006, Mongo very often approaches from very dismissive stance. He reverts with very short descrpitions and, what's more important, does not care to enter discussion.(this one even shows that Mongo sometimes thinks that "Wikipedia is him". He didn't want to respond to my arguments, arguments which ultimately led to an appropriate edit.) --SalvNaut 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A tacit "no holds barred" agreement licenses Seabhcan's behaviour
In Mongo's explanation of his treatment of me a defense of Seabhcan's behaviour seems to me to emerge very clearly. Mongo's "skeptical" approach of "always questioning information that is not mainstream" amounts, in practice, to a suspension of civility, including the principles of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:BITE. That is, once editors make (or even propose) a particular kind of edit, Mongo immediately drops the assumption of good faith and proceeds, by a variety of less than polite means, to prevent them from accomplishing their goals. In cases where this move proves to be ineffective, i.e., when the editor persists and ultimately demonstrates sound judgment, Mongo construes his own change of mind as "accomodating" and maintains the appropriateness of his original reaction. I believe Mongo's attitude in this regard is shared by a number of editors that are involved in this dispute on both sides, though certainly not all. Among these editors, as far as I can tell, a tacit "no holds barred" agreement applies, and they are reasonably good at directing their insults to editors who are party to this agreement alone. My experience with Seabhcan looks to me like an attempt to pull an editor out of the crossfire by an editor who would normally be shooting, but who here had the good sense to see that I had been mistaken for a partisan.

Mongo himself suggests that this is a general attitude when he says that his were not the only "guarded" responses to my suggestions. In fact, I would say Mongo's early remarks in my first meeting with him were "barbed", and I mean this in a very specific way that User:Toiyabe brought to my attention: "I think a lot of people are waiting to see if you crack under pressure and say something nutty." Indeed, Mongo was even handing me something sufficienty nutty to say -- all I had to do was take the bait. If I had, his barb would been firmly set and I would have been in for long painful reeling in, until I broke the line and swam away, or he could club me with an adminstrative action in response to my thrashing about.

My basic question here is, Given the personal and "skeptical" editing style of Mongo and others is Seabhcan's behaviour really wrong? Can we not argue that there exists, among this group of editors (again, on both sides) a particular tone, arrived at by tacit but mutual agreement, to challenge each other's point of view in strong terms? The only thing we might ask is that they (again, as a self-governing group) exercise a bit more restraint with newbies. But, as I have been arguing, it is precisely Seabhcan's way of welcoming newbies into that tone that deserves, not just approval, but, at least in my case, praise.--Thomas Basboll 09:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Miltopia
Ok, here's the deal: I'm going to provide evidence showing that I'm not harassing MONGO. I will probably end up criticizing MONGO in the process, but it's only to show that there is no reason to ban me. That's all I really care about. I care nothing for MONGO and don't support or oppose any "remedies" against him including desysopping, because I edit as a hobby, don't ever lose sleep over Wikipedia, and only care about staying unbanned. That said, here goes.

Edits over the last day
MONGO has objected strongly to my edits of last night-ish. First off, some edits to my userpage. This is nonsense and only noticeable if you have my userpage watchlisted or watch my edits. Neither of those are wrong, but it does mean that anyone who complains is actually seeking out knowledge of these edits and is thus not being harassed.

I allow people to put funny things in my userpage. They're commented out so they're not visible in case anyone objects. SOurce code for my userpage is here.
 * First edit - reverting removal of GTBacchus's hilarious vandalism because I loved it and it made me laugh and GTBacchus is awesome. He had actually discussed it with Winhunter and I saw it had been reverted as a result of a misunderstanding.  I am not seeing the problem here.
 * Second - re-inserting funniness that was reverted via pop-up. The edit summary should not be taken as hostile, since I don't take such things seriously.
 * Third - hadn't noticed Voretus had been reverted too. The edit summary was a joke, Christ, nothing to get all upset about.

MONGO also says my edit to Kelly Martin's self-filed RfC was trolling and/or harassment. This is the edit. How could anyone possibly find fault in making it easier to start a new section?

Alexjohnc3
Alex and I had corresponded off-wiki, so I came around to say hi after he indicated he was feeling down. This is actually why I started editing. MONGO objects to this comment, which, as MONGO himself states, I apologized for and removed. Note that both admins who unblocked me were awre of this comment. So... all's well that ends well. It wasn't nice, but a block 3 months down the line would be pointless, and an outright ban would be excessive. The edit I referenced in the new section was this (it was a joke, okay?), which was then rollbacked and restored by the "owner" of the userpage. THIS is where MONGO and I had our first interactions. While I did comment on MONGO, MONGO found me by watching Alex's page. I didn't seek him out. I was only here to say hello to Alex. I was rude to MONGO and have since learned to "wear my Wikipedia hat" better, thought I noticed MONGO gets no flak for calling me the names I am only now discovering, thanks to Travb's evidence.

He also objected to me saying this, in which I said he shouldn't order people around. The "dick thing" I referenced was not calling MONGO a dick, but rather him ordering Alex not to reference what I've come to learn is a popular Wikipedia philosophy, or guideline, or something. This is also where I made a comment implying that Wikipedia would be helpless without me. It's embarrassing that I have to explain this, but that was supposed to be light-hearted joking to get people to chill out.

Stalking
I am not stalking MONGO, as I've explained to the satisfaction of other admins. I'll go ahead and repeat myself one last time here and that'll be it.
 * This edit resulted in me following RfA's that catch my attention. George's did because of past events and his name was recognizable.  After the disgraceful RfA was over, I went to his talk page to see what the aftermath was.  I found a tactless comment by MONGO and commented on it.  No apology here... but no stalking either, which seems to be the only concern.
 * This edit has already been explained to the satisfaction of other admins, but I'll re-iterate. I was linked to the article offsite, because it ws apparently stirring up drama, and saw all the nasty templates.  Them plus the table of contents made it impossible to see almost any text.  Since encyclopedia's are meant to be read, I removed one.  After MONGO rollbacked me, I removed it again due to a lack of explanation and posted a comment on the talk page explaining why (note: I did NOT mention MONGO in that note if I remember correctly).  It was re-reverted and I disregarded the whole affair.
 * For this edit, I did check MONGO's contributions to get to. I only looked because I found he had rollbacked my above non-vandal edit and I was making sure he hadn't gone on another rollback spree on me.  "New" in an edit summary caught my eye and I went to take a look (mostly because it's hard for me to imagine Wikipedia not having an article on something that wasn't deleted) and read it.  BIG DEAL.  Then I found a redlink and removed it.  When MONGO rollbacked me, I left a would-be reassuring message on his talk page.  When my attempts at diffusing the situation failed and ONGO reverted me again, choosing to be intimidating instead of just explaining he was going to write the article, I asked for a third party to alleviate the tension on ANI.  I was banned.  At this point, my interaction with MONGO ceased for the night.  I didn't return to the situation, and I made one post clarifying my edits on ANI after MONGO started and left it to them to argue about.
 * My Doug Bell RfA vote - well, same thing as Georgewilliamherbert's - I watch the RfAs (and RFARs and sometimes glance at ANI), read DOug Bell's, and (before seeing MONGO's sig, I might add) clicked on his userpage, and the first thing I see is a link to an article about him. Well, of course that's gonna interest me if someone who is "notable" is gonna be an admin, so I clicked it, looked to see how old it ws in the history, and see that he wrote it himself.  I read the discussion on the RfA and it seemed to confirm it, so I opposed.  I'm a haggard deletionist when it comes to vanity, to the point that it's gotten me in trouble on other wikis, so this is reasonable.
 * Finally, this - I don't remember how I got there, I didn't even remember the edit until MONGO brought it up because I didn't care. If anyone finds fault in fixing the template so it said an actual person, they are not thinking clearly.

General Comments
Some notes -

First of all, I am obviously not seeking drama (and should not be penalized for saying I'm not seeking interaction, although MONGO has included diffs where I've said that as "evidence" against me). The reason I've said this with confidence is that I made one reply to MONGO's ANI report and didn't even give it another though, while others apparently stuck around to argue about semantics. MONGO, as Travb has now shown me via his evidence section, went around hassling everyone who disagreed with him, saying they supported harassment and were defending disruption. Yet a comment from Miltopia never reached those threads...

Speaking of the ANI, it seemed as though the only objection most people had to the unblock was that there was not proper discussion, not that I didn't actually deserve the unblock. So that's something to keep in mind while claiming I "harassed" MONGO. There were severa comments defending me there, and I find it interesting they're all being ignored by latecomers to the case. Well, I advise you all to consider they're judgement - clearly the consensus was that I was behaving appropriately. This comment is an especially good read, although I won't do the disrespect of paraphrasing it, since GTBacchus is the smartest person on Wikipedia and knows how to identify and deal with trolls better than anyone else (see his RfA).

That is all. This is not about ED and if it turns out to be about ED, I have actively opposed making it so.

ADDENDUM - Musical Linguist's evidence is incorrect
Possibly by mistake, Musical Linguist hasn't presented the events correctly. I sitll don't see what this has to do with the case, but whatever. I'm just gonna go point by point again, that seems easiest. Please read her evidence first or this will make no sense.


 * The ":-D Lol" was not a response to that link.  By the way, ArbCom does not need to just "take her word for it", I'll squash the melodrama there right now by saying the link was highly inapporopriate.  It was also very unfunny, and not something I would "lol" at.  What I laughed at was Ashley Y's own reply - the absurdity of the nuclear drama I anticipated that link causing coupled by the "Oh darn, I wish I hadn't brought it up" was funny to me.  I guess there's no way to "prove" my sense of humor, but whatever.  Let me make it clear: I was lolling at Ashley Y, not at the link.
 * Preliminary edits: I've been over this... anyway, here goes: The edit to Jacknstock's talk page was inappropriate. It was also months ago.  I originally registered just to insult him, in fact.  Originally.  It, as I've said, for goodness sake, was bad and now this is no longer a "single-purpose account" as they're called here.  So hat's all in the past, dead and done.  The earlier edits have already been presented and refuted, so hopefully committee members will have already decided whether they'll show trolling on my part - specifically the "apeshit" comment, which I apologized for and later removed.  I'm now a much more courteous  Wikipedian.  Even controversial editors, as I've unfortunately become, have to learn sometime.

Specific taunting
Some of these are really laughable, no offense to Musical Linguist.
 * My edit using my userpage to proclaim myself to have found articles to edit.  I have read and re-read and re-read this edit and just don't see the problem.  If Musical Linguist's attitude towards me declaring my intention to edit articles is so suspicious, her judgment regarding my other edits is probably equally inaccurate.
 * This - This is also old news. At this point it's just ArbCom's job to decide who to believe, though my explanation seems the most likely (or maybe that's just to me, since I know it's the right one) - that this edit was intended as a "chill out" remark to cool things down, as MONGO was hassling Alexjohnc3 for no reason.  Making a light-hearted joke about my importance (or lack thereof) to WIkipedia is not taunting.  Where is all this sinister interpretation of my comments coming from?  It's hard for me to believe some of the lengths people have gone to seek fault and be upset over it.
 * Another comment, this time on my talk page - Well, just read it. Basically what I'm telling MONGO is that I have no interest in talking to him and he should quit hovering over Alex and that he should leave me alone (after all, it was MONGO that found me after I edited Alex's userpage, not the other way around).
 * This edit - was just to keep the conversation in context. Fred himself has re-disabled it and contacted me on my talk page telling me, seemingly none to aggresively, not to do it again.  Which I won't, of course.  I've left comments on Fred's talk page and on the workshop about this, which have been ignored.  In all fairness, if this is to be considered a problem they should be replied to.

Note
I almost forgot: Musical Linguist's assertion as follows:


 * It seems also that when he realized he was in danger of being reblocked, and that admins were watching him, he began to make more edits that were not related to MONGO

...is merely a restatement of what I had said before - that when things with MONGO went sour, I bowed out rather than pursue conflict.

Admins (and users) failed to give MONGO adequate support
At the time of the deletion review for the Encylopaedia Dramatica talk page, MONGO mentioned an inappropriate edit made by at 6:46 on 5 November. He wanted it removed from the history in the event of the page being restored. I cannot supply a diff because the page is still deleted. However, I have looked in the history of deleted edits.

23:59, 7 November 2006. MONGO (Notability - link to attack page removed...anyone repost and they will be blocked) 03:29, 7 November 2006. Miltopia (Re: notability - - listen to GT, he is wise like owl) 03:27, 7 November 2006. Miltopia (Notability - - had to laugh) 02:06, 7 November 2006. GTBacchus (Re: notability - reply to Anomo - that's not accurate) 01:44, 7 November 2006. Anomo (Re: notability) 22:43, 6 November 2006. Wasabe3543 02:37, 6 November 2006. Minidoxigirli 07:57, 5 November 2006. Ashley Y (Notability) 06:46, 5 November 2006. Ribonucleic (Notability - +link) 07:19, 4 November 2006. Ashley Y

I clicked on the link which Ribonucleic had added, shortly after MONGO had mentioned it. Obviously, I am not reproducing it here, but it was to a particularly vile attack article on MONGO. It is inconceivable that that link could have been posted in good faith, by an editor who was not trolling. Yet it was nearly three days before it was removed &mdash; by MONGO himself. During that period, seven edits were made to the page, including one by an administrator. (One of the editors &mdash; Miltopia &mdash; openly jeered at MONGO.) [Comment added at 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC) &mdash; in the section above, Miltopia claims that his "LOL" was aimed at Ashley Y, not at MONGO.] Yet the link remained there until MONGO noticed and removed it himself.

I clicked on that link again a few minutes ago, and found that it either has been removed or now requires a username and password in order to access it. Arbitrators, therefore, have only my word for it (and presumably MONGO's) that it was so inappropriate. I can only say that if that link had been added to a page which wasn't a candidate for deletion, and I had seen it at the time, I would have performed a deletion and selective restoration, and would then have gone here to ask for oversighting. And I would very likely have blocked Ribonucleic.

I do not wish to imply malice or culpability on the part of the six editors who edited between Ribonucleic's addition of the link and MONGO's removal of it (with the exception of Miltopia &mdash; see below). I don't personally click on every single link that is added by other users to the talk pages that I'm active on. Nevertheless, I consider that incident to be one of several that show that we simply didn't do enough to help. In my opinion, administrators who knew that MONGO was being trolled and harassed in connection with Encyclopaedia Dramatica should have watchlisted that talk page, and have made more effort to be around to deal with such incidents. I include myself among those who failed.

Miltopia was taunting MONGO
My evidence for this has been posted in the section immediately above this &mdash; "Admins (and users) failed to give MONGO adequate support". There is, of course, other evidence submitted by other users, which I agree with, and which, to a limited extent (I couldn't give it full attention), I noticed at the time. It is obvious that Miltopia's early presence on Wikipedia was connected with trolling and with taunting MONGO, and wiki-stalking him to articles that he (Miltopia) had not previously edited. It seems also that when he realized he was in danger of being reblocked, and that admins were watching him, he began to make more edits that were not related to MONGO, in an effort to give the impression that he really was a genuine editor who had unwittingly become caught up in something that he didn't want any involvement in. As evidence, I submit the following from the deleted talk page of Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Obviously, I cannot give diffs, but any administrator can see the evidence. I have altered the offensive link which was posted by Ribonucleic &mdash; linking instead to something that does not exist.


 * Notability


 * Is it correct that, per the arbcom decision above, there will never be an article about ED, regardless of how notable ED is or might become in the future? That seems somehow unencyclopaedic. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Makes you wonder. http://www.inappropriatelinkalteredbyMusicalLinguist Ribonucleic 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'm sorry I brought it up now... &mdash;Ashley Y 07:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * :-D Lol  Miltopia 03:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned above that some of the people who posted to that page after the link was posted may not have been aware of the content of the website. The ":-D Lol" post from Miltopia makes it clear that he at any rate, was aware of it. The image he tries to present of an innocent newbie who was not stalking, harassing, or trolling MONGO, and who just got caught up in this case by accident simply does not hold water. The existence of deleted edits is an extra reason why admins should not normally unblock a user without first checking with the blocking admin: the would-be unblocker may have missed some evidence.

Miltopia has engaged in trolling from the start

 * Miltopia's first edit "YOu bastard! Go to hell!" (Not addressed to MONGO)
 * Miltopia's fifth edit MONGO will "go apeshit"
 * Sixth edit agrees to remove attack
 * Seventh edit complains that rollback was used for his "apeshit" post
 * Ninth edit jokes that MONGO caught his edit in about fifteen seconds
 * Fourteenth edit "I originally came to Wikipedia to check out some of the discussions, all the recent hysteria about Encyclopedia Dramatica made me want to see them for myself. Checking out the contribs of a few editors actually caused me to find an article to edit though!"
 * Fifteenth edit more taunting of MONGO
 * Sixteenth edit the taunting continues
 * Seventeenth edit restores a link to ED which had been disabled by an arbitrator. Note: the evidence, including his presence at the now-deleted ED talk page, show that he would have aware of the reason for disabling the links. In fairness, he did not directly restore the link: he linked to a previous version of his talk page which had that link.

Miltopia is far from being alone in the harassment of MONGO. However, it is unlikely that I'll have time to give more evidence.

Update

 * Update at 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC) &mdash; I have removed evidence of Miltopia's more recent edits to his own userpage, because on reflection, I find them not relevant to this case. The two positions I hold are that MONGO was not given appropriate support, and that Miltopia's early behaviour at Wikipedia was such as to invite a characterization of "troll", and to invite a block. Giving extremely flippant answers to MONGO's warnings, insulting him and making jokes about him on talk pages, and turning up at articles MONGO was editing, belonged to a pattern of taunting. The confrontational edits to his user page occurred after MONGO's block, and therefore have little to do with this case.


 * The committee has not proposed any action against Miltopia. Nor would I support any such action. I will add as evidence which (for obvious reasons) I cannot post here that a quick review of Miltopia's contributions off wiki suggests that he has on occasion edited articles about Wikipedia admins in such a way as to remove offensive material.

Evidence presented by User:AvoidingRetaliation
Since anonymous evidence is allowed, I too would like to present anonymously, lest I be retaliated against. Obviously, I haven't taken the same extensive precautions as the anonymous user above, so it will be simple task for people to discover my identity, but I would ask they not do so unless absolutely necessary.

I'm writing because I saw the straw poll on desysoping MONGO, and I wanted to vote in support of it. I chose not to, however, because I was afraid of retaliation. Noticing that no one has picked out this specific aspect of MONGO's behavior, I wanted to present evidence showing my fears are valid.

MONGO threatens retaliation against editors who disagree with him

 * Regarding Miltopia incident
 * User:Gentgeen disagrees with MONGO about a block and is branded an "admin who supports harassment".
 * User:Luna Santin disagrees with MONGO about a block, and is similarly labeled "admin who supports harassment".
 * User:yandman disagrees with MONGO's behavior "I see you've made a threat of blocking a user who tried to defend him just because he linked to the 'don't be a dick'"
 * MONGO sarcastically (and omninously) replies "Thanks for the support and I'll remember it"


 * To Georgewilliamherbert
 * User:Georgewilliamherbert disagrees with MONGO saying,"There was a finding of excessive zeal in the arbcom case, and it appears that Mongo took the "No action is taken..." response as a license to go back to behaving rudely, when it really should have been taken as a clear warning that there is a line in the sand."
 * Mongo replies it may be best if you refrain from making wildly erroneous and accusatory judgement calls regarding my efforts and my actions on wikipedia to protect myself from harassment. In a nutshell, I am an admin and this is a polite warning in regards to your commentary.
 * Mongo further threatens to take action, saying: "Comments that I escalate things is pure nonsense...I don't...you are the one who is always there, opinion in hand, even if you are a minority voice. I don't have to put up with that and I won't. Your commentary is based on your opinion, not any relaity of the situation because you are not me and you have no idea what is really going on that is not even wiki based. So here's the deal, you stop making wildly exaggerated misrepresentations of my motives and actions and start assuming good faith on my part, or I will be force to deal with your comments that oftentimes heighten the potential tensions and are harassment."
 * When Georgewilliamherbert runs for Admin, MONGO argues forcefully against promotion, and the RFA does not succeed due to Mongo's objections.


 * To Sparkhead
 * User:Sparkhead disagrees with MONGO.
 * MONGO replies with a threat: "The discussion does not involve you and you are trying to antagonize me...so here is your warning from me, an administrator."
 * Sparkhead disputes the warning, to which MONGO replies I'll repeat my warning to you...the conversation doesn't involve you.

As best I can tell, these five users were attacked without reason. Their only crime was to disagree with MONGO. Two editors were threatened with blocks, two admins were subjected to personal attacks, and one was assured that MONGO "would remember his 'support'". Backed up by admin tools, these sorts of threats carry weight that they would not otherwise have. Taken together, they represent a misuse of his status as an Admin.
 * Comment

There are many, many "gray" examples of this behavior presented above, but I wanted to highlight these five because seem so indefensible.

Threats of retaliation make the straw poll particularly inaccurate
The straw poll shows overwhelming opposition desysoping MONGO, and I see some comments from the Arbiters that they may want to re-evaluate the desysoping of MONGO because of that feedback. I would encourage Arbiters not be swayed in any way. MONGO has personally shown a certain vindictive zeal. He and his closest allies are strong believers in Defending Each Other-- a good idea, but one which can sometimes inadvertantly devolve into Attack The Common Enemy. The situation is such that those who oppose desysoping have every motivation to come forwards. Those support it are much more hesistant to do so. Obviously, Voting is always evil-- but it's particularly evil in this instance.

If MONGO truly has the confidence that the straw poll indicates, then a future RFA will easily pass, and nothing will be lost. If however, there are many people more like me, people who support the desysopping but are hesistant to say so in a mere straw poll, then the RFA will fail. I urge ArbCom to let that process take place. MONGO's actions are sufficiently troubling that he should have to at least face an RFA to see if he still has the confidence of the community. That is a very low hurdle to have to achieve, given his actions. He's not being blocked or permabanned. He's not being forbidden from being an Admin-- he just has to actually ask the community if he still has their support. I suspect he does not.

Thank you. --AvoidingRetaliation 17:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

{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.