Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan

Seabhcán is persistently uncivil, and continues to make personal attacks after being asked several times by different people to stop. This has been going on for some time, and occurs in editing related to pages involving terrorism, US foreign policy, and conspiracy theories, making already difficult areas harder yet to work on. On two occasions he has used his admin tools in questionable ways on pages he actively edits, giving the appearence of maintaining a disputed page as he prefers it.

NOTE: User:MONGO has started a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration on this case.

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. "I don't know but I'm open to suggestions! Really, there are only 5-10 of these problem editors. However, they seem to have an extraordinary amount of time to devote to their trolling. We honest editors have real lives to live. If we had a solid group of about 20-30 editors willing to cover wikipedia in shifts and to shout down this POV-pushing then we could balance them (or force their employers to hire a few more goons to edit)"17:34, 18 November 2006
2. "You can try, and you may win some battles. The problem is that this group of editors will wait like vultures until you or others lose interest and move on. Then they'll go to work again stripping away material that they don't want others to see."16:27, 18 November 2006
3. "I agree. Thanks for your support. Mo-ty needs to learn to put his fanatical nationalism to one side when he edits."21:45, 17 November 2006
4. "Oh, but pushing Mo-ty's buttons is so easy and fun. You should try. Its addictive." 21:57, 17 November 2006
5. "To be honest, I don't think it would make any difference. After months and years of dealing with people like morty, TDS, Mongo, and the rest, it is clear that they have no interest in wikipedia. They are here to push their personal nationalistic bias. History, citation, reality, take a back seat to promotion of their personal myths."23:09, 17 November 2006
6. "On wikibreak - sick of talking to dumb people of certain nations who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history."20:08, 31 October 2006 - Removed after extensive discussion.
7. 13:15, 8 October 2006 edit summary "Saint Mongo of Factoid has pronounced upon this topic, but not yet blessed us with a holy citation, let us pray this will be improved in future"
8. "I think we've reached the same old impass again. Mongo doesn't want anything changed, Tom is afraid of changing anything and MMX1 (which stands for "Mini-Me of Mongo X1") will chime in any moment now with a WP:NPA warning."14:30, 21 July 2006
9. 08:50, 21 July 2006 "I think you need a holiday - or a psychiatrist."
10. "This article is his personal kitty-litter and he won't stand to see it defiled with fact or information."10:59, 20 July 2006
11. "Ha ha. Mongo - I don't doubt that you 'spread lies', as you put it, in your spare time."11:13, 20 July 2006
12. "Thanks for the pep talk Guinnog, but I'm too fed up with this wanker [referring to MONGO] to work on the 9/11 stuff anymore."18:45, 3 June 2006
13. "(Mongo's insults don't bother me. I've come to realise that he's probably just a 15 year old kid using his dad's computer, laughing through his zits at what he can get away with)"16:07, 4 May 2006
14. "I think its a fair comment given your recent trolling and accusations of 'junk science'. "[referring to MONGO]20:18, 30 April 2006
15. "Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo!"10:14, 30 April 2006 - "Mongo's contribution to the world of science."
16. 11:46,10 November 2006 edit summary ". . . Please learn something about European history before you edit."
17. "You should perhaps consider using your education when you make edits. To claim that Gladio is a hoax is laughable. I had assumed you were merely ignorant. Obviously that isn't the reason you made such a silly edit. What is the reason?"16:56, 10 November 2006
18. "Here's some more anti-semitic bilge from Monty" 12:18, 11 November 2006 and the edit summary "Monty and TDC, brothers in antisemitism" And 10:47, 11 November 2006, where Morton tells him that it isn't "Monty" prior to the 12:18, 11 November 2006 edit.
19. ". . . Wikipedia seems to be dominated by a bunch of anti-free speach fascists, . . ." 11:28, 11 November 2006 and the edit summary "(monkeys run the zoo.)"
20. ". . . Doing that makes you seem dishonest, when perhaps, you are merely lazy." 14:45, 10 November 2006
21. "Thats daft. First . . ." (referring to Tbeatty's reasoning in the previous paragraph) 17:29, 13 November 2006
22. "Yes. [Fred] Bauder gave a stupid answer so I don't accept it. Really Mongo, for someone from "the land of the free" you are amazingly against free speach and discussion. What are you afraid of?" 13:30, 11 November 2006
23. "'in fact am always respectful'! [Quoting Mongo] Ha ha ha ha. You do have a sense of humour! The Forest Gump of Physics 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Admin Fred Bauder admonishing Admin Seabhcan: "I think you jump a little quickly to extreme conclusions. Calling those who disagree with you fascists is over the top. . . " 11:21, 19 November 2006
25. "I will point out that Tbeaty, Mongo, TDC, Morton Devonshire and others have been behaving as an unacceptable and trollish cabal who attempt to push their nationalist POV while punishing users who stand up to them. ..." 08:13, 19 November 2006
26. "Interesting how you now use sources to prove your point, yet criticize me above for 'anti-american' sources. Zmag and counterpunch? Mongo, I'm surprised you read such anti-american, McChomsky trash. Really now! you should hand in your passport" 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. "I have started an AN/I on you idiotic threat to block SalvNaut. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)"07:47, 26 November 2006[reply]
28. "OliverH, theres no point getting cross with Morton. His aims here are so hypocritical as to be laughable. He is a caricature wont unto flesh. His world view is so narrow that a cigarette paper of enlightenment could not be slipped between his prejudice and his bigotry, etc... "10:35, 25 November 2006

At Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America:

1. 14:58, 12 November 2006 blocked for 3RR

1. "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)"10:44, 18 November 2006
2. "The problem is that Americans are uniquely defensive of what they think should be true, rather than what is true." 15:13, 1 November 2006
3. "...sick of talking to dumb Americans who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history."[1] was changed after extensive discussion to ". . . sick of talking to dumb people of certain nations who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history"20:08, 31 October 2006
4. ". . . Part of the problem is that for many American editors the events of 9/11 have become a kind of religious dogma"07:57, 20 July 2006

At Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America:

1. Talk notice Request before the fact.
2. 10:19, 22 August 2006 - edit after the page was protected; discussion at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/archive3#Edit request
3. Talk notice - explanation after the fact.

At Operation Gladio:

1. 21:44, 10 November 2006 User:Morton_devonshire reduces article back to stub.
2. 21:44, 10 November 2006 - reverted by AntiVandalBot.
3. 00:14, 11 November 2006 - User:Tbeatty deletes part of intro.
4. 00:21, 11 November 2006 reverted
5. 00:24, 11 November 2006 protected
6. 00:24, 11 November 2006 tagged protected
7. 07:20, 11 November 2006 User:Centrx unprotects the page
8. 12:16, 12 November 2006 - Seabcan's explanation
9. 12:02, 11 November 2006 - User:Steel359 re-protects the page.

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
2. Wikipedia:Civility
3. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
4. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule Edit wars

1. Wikipedia:Protection policy Reverts then protects a page; Edits protected page

(provide diffs and links)

1. 23:55, 17 November 2006
2. 23:09, 17 November 2006
3. 00:47, 9 October 2006
4. 13:31, 24 September 2006 and his response
5. 14:42, 21 July 2006
6. 14:35, 21 July 2006
7. 11:04, 20 July 2006
8. 09:30, 3 July 2006
9. 21:59, 10 May 2006

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Tbeatty 01:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. MONGO 07:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Morton Devonshire^Yo 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 07:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Aude (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Jersey Devil 15:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Crockspot 15:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Brimba 13:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

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[2] [3] [4]. 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. [5] [6] [7]. 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[8] 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 [9], [10]. Morton Devonshire has repeated this accusations many times on talk pages. TDC has removed reference to Ganser based on this imagined antisemitism [11]. 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[12] [13] [14] 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 [15]. 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)[16]

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SalvNaut 14:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. —Nightstallion (?) 21:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

User:Seabhcan is currently on a wikivacation, probably to defuse the tension and animosity, before he left, User:Seabhcan wrote:

Tom, I don't believe these editors are here for the betterment of wikipedia. I think they edit here to push their personal POV. The evidence of this is ample and I see no reason to pretend that isn't true. I assume good faith and their actions prove me wrong. I won't stop seeing the elephant in the room. I don't condemn anyone for being a particular nationality, but when an editor comes here only to push their nationalism and bias, I point that out. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seabhcan, while "calling the kettle black", being a POV warrior himself, has a good point. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The same group of editors, continue to push their own POV. I readily admit that I am one of those editors, along with Seabhcan and Tom Harrison.

I agree with Seabhcan, all of these editors, including myself are here to push their personal POV, and are biased.

I disagree with Seabhcan though, I do believe we are all here "for the betterment of wikipedia", the problem is we all have different definitions of what makes wikipedia better.

I personally feel that calling other people "trolls" does not help make wikipedia better. That said, I also think that deleting large sections of referenced text, putting well referenced pages up for AfD, using wikipolicy as a weapon to push your own POV, also does not help make wikipedia any better. When wikiusers use RfCs, ANIs, and wikipolicy to push there own blatant biases, then something is seriously wrong with the way wikipedia works, and wikipedia needs to be fixed.

Seabhcan behavior clearly does not meet WP:NPA. That said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." It is only fair that the users who are on the other side of the edit war should have their own RfCs (as many of them have in the past), and if Seabhcan gets punished for WP:NPA, then we all should be, including myself. Travb (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. F.A.A.F.A. 09:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SalvNaut 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. csloat 23:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Abe Froman 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Addhoc 14:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. RaveenS 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Edison 17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive User:Seabhcan as very confrontational and disruptive against users who he disagrees with on edits to articles and the material presented. Instead of conducting a proper discussion on disputed material, he badgers and belittles specific users, especially targeting American users he disagrees with as he shows his bias per his user page posting here. My foremost interaction with Seabhcan was on Morton Devonshire’s talk page as the examples above are presented. I know it can be difficult to have a discussion on a controversial topic with someone who is insulting, especially when they are mocking your name with intentional misspelling and mispronunciation. Actually, I was shocked when I found out that Seabhcan was an admin! For him to demean others with insults that he disagrees with is not productive. In fact, it has a domino effect to the contrary. I wish this admin would be more respectful of all users, even those that don’t share his viewpoint. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 07:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. MONGO 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Tbeatty 08:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Morton Devonshire^Yo 11:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Aude (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Jersey Devil 15:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Dman727 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Crockspot 15:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Brimba 13:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Strothra 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Sandy (Talk) 23:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Exactly. We shouldn't have to tell an admin that Wikipedia is not a battleground. I don't care how bad Morton has been, that wouldn't give Seabhcan justification for the comments made. Use whatever dispute resolution is necessary, but don't scream and leap, even if the you think the other guy did first. TheronJ 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seabhcan has been less than civil at times, as most editors on Wiki have been at one time or another. I feel, however, that his actions have been precipitated by a coordinated effort by certain editors to 'Wikistalk' him, and these editors made bad faith edits on articles he is working on, and that the actions of several of the 'opposing' editors have been as bad or worse than his. Once again, editors from a private notice board have found an article, Operation Gladio, on which to wage a 'holy war' and Seabhcan may be seen as an 'enemy' who must be 'neutralized' lest he offer evidence that the US Gov, like all governments, has made mistakes and errors of judgement in the past. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. SalvNaut 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Stone put to sky 14:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Travb (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Abe Froman 15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Addhoc 14:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. RaveenS 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Edison 17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this discussion about exactly? About Seabhcan character?

Seabhcan is an intelligent editor with limited patience. He often criticises other editors' actions on Wikipedia, using sarcasm, malicious satire.

Do those editors who put this request up, really feel so ofended by Seabhcan, that they can't sleep at night, can't edit Wiki articles? I don't think so. Seabhcan's "disruption" comes only when he strongly disagrees with someone (mainly, he looses his patience when dealing with subsequent, not explained deletions of his material). He express his disagreement accordingly to his character. At least you can be sure, that with Seabhcan you can have a TRUE discussion about a disagreement - he tells you what he thinks about your arguments, your actions. People have variety of characters, you might dislike Seabhcan's, but Seabhcan is not uncivil. He just pushes the discussion to a level many would like not to, for example, a bias within editors themselves (existing, or not - some could say this is a question, but it should be obvious that everyone has some kind of bias). Whether it is jutified to push discussion to such levels - I don't really know, it is a question much broader that this case. This is not uncivility, though.

So, what is the real reason for this? Did Seabhcan having been presented with arguments not follow logic and irrationally stayed with his POV? No, I haven't seen an example of that. Did he missused his administrator privileges? - it is one of 3 valid qestions here. I don't feel qualified enough to asses this.

The second valid question is, whether things which Seabhcan does are for the better quality of Wikipedia, or not. Then, why to distract attention from real issues to Seabhcan character? Why not to go back to the articles and respond to his arguments? Show him wrong with arguments - then, if he does not conform to arguments, put a request for comment with those examples. Again, I see no point in discussing those issues from this stance - suspected uncivility of Seabhcan. Discuss arguments and actions, not the style of Seabhcan discussion on Wikipedia, because this is not a case of some kid who doesn't know how to behave himself - Seabhcan is an experienced editor (with a tough, witty character).

Does the fact that Seabhcan thinks of some editors what he thinks, really hurt those editors sooo much? Maybe it's just me, but I doubt it. I, for example, suspect that many editors might think of me being "conspiracy nut" or something similiar, but I don't really care much. I give them right to, I just stick to the arguments, and wait for truth whatever it is.

So, I keep asking myself the 3rd question: what's the real reason for this request for comment - is it indeed, sincere, genuine concern with Wikipedia articles quality, concern with well-being of Wikipedia's editors? Or an attempt to "silence" Seabhcan and his arguments, while basing it on Seabhcan's tough character, not arguments themselves? --SalvNaut 13:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Stone put to sky 14:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. F.A.A.F.A. 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. csloat 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Broadly agree. Substance, not style, should always be the issue. However, I did find some of the personal swipes annoying, at least those against good editors. I fully understand his exasperation with some others though. Derex 13:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Abe Froman 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Addhoc 14:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. RaveenS 16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem whatsoever with Seabchan's rhetorical behavior or tone. I have been frequenting one of the boards on which this cabal of page vandals -- devonshire, junglecat, tdc, nuclearzero and their sockpuppets -- have fixated, and i consider seabchan's behavior to be politely understated and exemplary in its patience and light-hearted goodwill.

On the other hand, the editors who initiated this complaint against him are guilty of wikistalking in the extreme. They are people who contribute little or nothing to any of the pages mentioned above, instead insisting that all content of these pages be stripped of any meaning or relevant links. Their combined activity on many of these pages consists solely in whittling away any and all content until nothing meaningful or relevant is left on the page.

This "complaint" against seabchan is simply one more aspect of their disingenuous shenanigans, and should be dismissed outright as frivolous and irrelevant. For the record: seabchan hasn't hunted around and found them, but rather they have found him, arriving on his pages in some cases long after his editorial presence had already been well established. Seabchan's comments on their character have been neither vulgar nor defamatory, and were occasioned in each case by the obviously vandalistic acts which these "editors" have displayed towards pages not to their political tastes.

The feigned indignation of this cabal is, from my perspective, nothing more than the over-pious hysteria of scheming dissemblers.Stone put to sky 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. F.A.A.F.A. 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Abe Froman 15:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SalvNaut 14:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the user to be very incivil and disruputive to the project as verified by the diffs provided by Tom Harisson. In the past I've seen him give a barnstar to the verified sockpuppet User:TruthSeeker1234 (whom has since been indefinately blocked) For exposing the hypocrisy of some editors. [17]. When he went on break he added a personal attack to his user page stating sick of talking to dumb Americans who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history [18]. When this statement was removed as a personal attack he reverted stating rv vandalism [19]. These are not isolated incidents but have been persistant in the user's editting. All one has to do is, again, see the diffs provided by Tom Harisson.

All of this is why I was surprised to learn that the user was an administrator. He gained adminship more than a year ago on June 2005 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seabhcan. The "vote" broke down 22/2/5. I think that anyone who sees how much participation RFA's get now (with usually triple the amount of participants) can clearly see that this is no mandate for adminiship. But that really is the problem isn't it? Once a user gains adminship he or she is "administrator for life" and there is no proper mandatory recall process or regularly held "elections" to put a check on that adminiship. So instead we have to take up time in RFC's that we already know will not progess to anything because the user who is having this RFC openly states an unwillingness to change. Therefore in this statement I ask that one of two things should happen 1) Seabchan agree to having a second Request for Adminship to see if there still is a consensus to keep him as an administrator on Wikipedia or 2) if he refuses option one we take this matter to the Arbitration Committee and have them settle the matter.--Jersey Devil 15:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with most of this, but it's not Seabhcan's fault that there were fewer participants in Rfa's when he was made an admin, and he shouldn't have to try out again simply because of fewer voters. The purpose of an Rfc is to try and see if an editor in question will alter his/her editing issues so that an arbcom hearing isn't necessary. As of yet, I see little reason to believe that this will be possible.--MONGO 07:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Crockspot 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Brimba 13:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Strothra 00:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Reading through all of this, I'm surprised that any Wikipedian (much less an admin) can say the kinds of things (including taunting) Seabhcan has said to another editor, and feel certain that any non-admin would be quickly blocked for such behavior. Sandy (Talk) 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. - Per my comments below, if Seabhcan had expressed some intent to try to act more civilly in the future and avoid protecting articles in which he/she was involved in a dispute, I wouldn't think discipline would be necessary. Sadly, Seabhcan's comments seem to indicate that he/she thinks that the edits and page protections were the right thing to do. TheronJ 22:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to make a statement after reading some of the above. I have slammed heads with Seabhcan on numerous occasions and at once felt they were a problem editor. That is until recently when the article we argued over was unprotected, I added citation tags and another editor began a revert war with me and Seabhcan stepped in and sourced the whole article. Instead of participating in chest beating or reverting for no reason, they took the thought out approach and provided the information that was being requested, showing they were right through proof instead of simply saying so. I thanked Seabhcan for that, for rising above and proving his point in a way that made the article better and contributed content to Wikipedia. I think everyone butts heads sometimes but all in all I find Seabhcan to be a very educated and responcible editor, one who while may have a POV, is more willing to prove it then push it, fighting with citations over reverts and rants, something Wikipedia needs. While I know this won't be the msot popular "Outside view", I find Seabhcan to be a good editor that contributes responcibly to Wikipedia, his contributions may be one sided with his political views, but they are all sourced and cited in a responcible way, which is more then most other editors on Wikipedia can claim. Again, thank you Seabhcan for your edits to that infamous article and for the good job you do here on Wikipedia. --NuclearZer0 16:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --NuclearZer0 16:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SalvNaut 16:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. --User:NuclearUmpf, remember when I suggested that someday we would be friends, or at least grudgingly respect each other like I do with User:TDC and User:CJK now? Amazing. What a stark change in your behavior. I am rarely suprised on wikipedia, but this is one of the times were I am not only pleasantly surprised, but shocked into a coma. NOTE: I believe User:NuclearUmpf is refering to the revert war between himself and me on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America began on 16:04, 23 October 2006 when NuclearUmpf removed three sections. Travb (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. csloat 23:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. (comments redacted with permission) - F.A.A.F.A. 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Stone put to sky 08:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree, and I echo Travb's shock at the messenger. I can tolerate a bit of rudeness by solid editors, but not smug civility by empty warriors. A short block for cooling-off might have been appropriate for a personal attack, but let's leave it at that. Derex 13:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Abe Froman 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Addhoc 14:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Edison 22:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this RfC Has little to do with any content related issues, but has everything to do with Seabhcan’s lack of respect for his fellow editors as well as his blatant abuse of his Admin abilities. This is not about content, it is about conduct. I first encountered Seabhcan when politely I asked him to explain his edit of a protected page [20], and he complied with my request to leave it. Since then, however, he has shown himself to be abusive, mean spirited, and not above abusing his Admin tools when the situation suits him. He has his opinions, and he is entitled to them, but that is no excuse for his behavior. Once again, I can only stress that this is primarily about conduct, not his contributions . Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. The conduct is the issue. Ongoing incivility and broad accusations about "Americans" are simply unacceptable, especially from an admin.--MONGO 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 08:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Brimba 13:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tbeatty 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. - Crockspot 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strothra 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. - Dman727 06:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    -RaveenS 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[21][reply]

12. - Sandy (Talk) 23:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. - TheronJ 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, a coterie of tendentious editors and admins, who are known to regularly brutalize wikipedians who may disagree with them, have chosen to unite against an admin for political, not community, reasons. I see this RfC as a waste of time and resources for the community. Abe Froman 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Abe Froman 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. F.A.A.F.A. 01:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Stone put to sky 09:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SalvNaut 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC) : I just hope it is not a waste of time and something good might come of it. I have a strong feeling that something is very wrong here - some try to picture Seabhcan as anti-American nation, while it is completely untrue. They do this by quoting him out of context, while it is obvious that Seabhcan never opposed Americans as a nation, only a group of editors. This is something between ridiculous and disgusting and cannot be forgotten here, imho. SalvNaut 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Addhoc 14:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Thomas Basboll 13:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Edison 17:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at point 4 under Seabhcan's "anti-American activities" violation, you'll find that his remark was made on his own discussion page in response to a brief note of thanks from me. It is instructive to look at what I was thanking him for. He intervened when Mongo 'criticized' (you decide) my suggestions for an edit (which was ultimately essentially accepted, after much discussion). I was making this suggestion on the talk page (to win consensus before making it in the article). It can be read here: [22]. Note that before Seabhcan intervened Mongo had pre-emptively implied that my suggestion had something to do with a belief he believes is absurd and I had never defended. Keep in mind that at this point I am a newbie, and Mongo is very likely in violation of WP:BITE. Here's my take on Seabhcan: his attacks (if that is what they are) are always directed at established voices; not only can they presumably take it, they certainly dish it out. He bullies bullies back. That's certainly what happened in the case I'm describing here. So I think Abe is dead on above.--Thomas Basboll 13:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Thomas Basboll 13:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. -- Agreed to suggest point 4 of the the un-American activities list constitutes a personal attack is ludicrous. Addhoc 14:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- SalvNaut 16:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- Endorse...kind of. It seems to me that Seabhcan has foolishly allowed himself to be lured into the gutter when he should know better. By the same token, whilst some of his quoted responses have been in my view robust but hardly personal attacks, some have been simply unacceptable- his inexact use of language (in particular, blanket attacks on "Americans") has not helped matters. I do not see his (mis-) behaviour as a serious issue (and far from an ArbCom enquiry) and I do detect a possible element of politically motivated "revenge" and (dare I say it) a cabalist mentality amongst some of his accusers, which is unsettling. I am not taking sides, because I have little experience editing the articles concerned, but I will say - as a general dictum- that the correct response to rabid propaganda of any political shade is always the same- restraint, reason, and substantiated counter-argument. Seabhcan is not innocent here and should most definitely have allowed himself to cool off rather than perpetuating pointless arguments. Equally, there seem to be few angels on the other side either, and a cynic might question the enthusiasm with which this RfC has been pursued and perhaps the underlying motivation of some of the participants (but of course we all AGF here, so that isn't an issue... ;-). Badgerpatrol 19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Seabhcan would just promise to try to stay civil and avoid admin actions in his/her own disputes in the future, I would chalk this up to regrettable but perhaps understandable actions taken in the heat of an argument. However, I am troubled by his/her apparent self-justification. IMHO:

1. As an admin, Seabhcan should have known better than to protect a page in which he/she was involved in a dispute. Any request for protection should have been taken to AN/I for a disinterested third party admin to review. Again, no discipline is required, but it would be reassuring to see Seabhcan agree that it was wrong, or at least promise not to do it again.
2. Similarly, WP:CIVIL doesn't have an exception for "but they started it." Especially coming from an admin, I would hope that Seabhcan would agree that it was regrettable to go around talking about censorship, cabals, and the like. Instead, Seabhcan's response seems to argue that because he/she is convinced that he/she is correct about the underlying content dispute, there are no remaining civility restraints towards Mongo, Morton, et al.
3. I don't really care about who started it; if Seabhcan showed some diffs from the other side, I might agree that they were uncivil too, but even so, that wouldn't justify Seabhcan's apparently belief that he/she wasn't required to be civil in the past, and worse, isn't required to be civil in the future.
4. Every anonymous IP editor out there is shouting about how he or she doesn't need to be civil because a cabal of pro-Ontario procurement editors is trying to censor the truth. (Just to pick an example out of a hat). Seabhcan is an experienced editor and admin and should know better - stay civil, even if (and especially if) you think other editors are jerks, and use dispute resolution where necessary.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- TheronJ 22:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see poor behaviour from both sides here. Seabhcan seems to have felt frustrated and aggrieved, and has been uncivil and disputatious on occasion. He has erred in an application of his admin tools from what I can see. The 'other side' seems to have succumbed to a 'sense of humour failure' though; many of Seabhcan's sallies are witty, and well within the "tough-but-fair" standard for my taste, although I might argue the energy is misdirected sometimes. Tom, MONGO and Seabhcan are all respected contributors of integrity and commitment to the project, who feel passionate about what they see as the truth. We should be celebrating that and finding a way to turn this energy towards improving articles. From what I know of these editors' individual characters and abilities, if they could turn to working productively together, they could do great things with some of these controversial articles.

On the issue of Seabhcan's conduct, I say a caution about proper use of admin tools in content disputes is in order.

On the content issue, is there some way of addressing how our coverage of these controversial issues can be NPOV, and perhaps what NPOV means in certain subjects?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Guinnog 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.