Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Seabhcan

message: I have been looking over the edits of some of the users, trying to figure out who is in the right here, it is rather troubling:
===Daniel Pearl===
User:Morton devonshire twice deletes referenced material on Daniel Pearl, reason: "revert nonsense".  User:Morton devonshire had never edited Daniel Pearl until User:Seabhcan did.   .  
User:Seabhcan then starts to make fun of User:Morton devonshire name. 
User:Tom harrison who also has never edited the article, then starts to edit the article too. User:Tom harrison is a frequent ally of User:Morton devonshire and shares his same POV. Too User:Tom harrison credit, he does not delete anything that User:Seabhcan created , since User:Morton devonshire had already deleted it. Tom also adds referenced material.  
The argument then goes to User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Daniel_Pearl where User:Seabhcan makes fun of  User:Seabhcan name. Travb (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: edits

message: User:Morton devonshire twice deletes referenced material on Daniel Pearl, reason: "revert nonsense".  User:Morton devonshire had never edited Daniel Pearl until User:Seabhcan did.   .  
User:Seabhcan then starts to make fun of User:Morton devonshire name. 
User:Tom harrison who also has never edited the article, then starts to edit the article too. User:Tom harrison is a frequent ally of User:Morton devonshire and shares his same POV. Too User:Tom harrison credit, he does not delete anything that User:Seabhcan created , since User:Morton devonshire had already deleted it. Tom also adds referenced material.  
The argument then goes to User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Daniel_Pearl where User:Seabhcan makes fun of  User:Seabhcan name. Travb (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Pearl

message: User:Morton devonshire 04:52, 3 November 2006 edits the article, calling the section he removes complete bullocks 
User:Seabhcan edits the article 03:36, 8 November 2006 
User:Seabhcan 12:03, 10 November 2006 writes in edit:  "rm Hoax banner. What idiot put that there? This is not a hoax" 
User:Seabhcan 18:46, 10 November 2006 writes in edit: "Please learn something about European history before you edit." 
User:Tbeatty 00:14, 11 November 2006 joins the editing, User:Tbeatty is a frequent ally of User:Morton devonshire and shares his same POV. 
User:Seabhcan 00:26, 11 November 2006 protects the article  
User:Derex 08:09, 11 November 2006 joins the editing User:Derex is is a frequent ally of User:Seabhcan and shares his same POV. .... response by Derex: I have not a clue what Seabchan's pov is, nor have I ever "allied" with him. I made a few edits after observing vandalism by Devonshire (re-dir of Gladio to Hoax).
User:Intangible 14:02, 13 November 2006 writes in his edit: "this is bullocks". User:Seabhcan objects to 'bullocks' term with talk page message .
User:Morton_devonshire/Egadio page: "Complete Bullocks!"
User:Morton_devonshire/Egadio#Der_J.C3.BCden_Did_It attack section about User:Seabhcan, including a "Permalink to Lord Seabhcan's 3RR block can be found here".
Bullocks: A castrated bull; a steer. Basically this is "bull". Travb (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Gladio

message: #13:15, 8 October 2006 edit summary "Saint Mongo of Factoid has pronounced upon this topic, but not yet blessed us with a holy citation, let us pray this will be improved in future.
I find this edit LOL funny. Travb (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is a fine line between incivility and humor

message: Sad.  A resolution was clearly in the works, based on the initial comments "This RFC has failed" generated.  But the same circle that brought this RFC and now Arbitration would not allow everyone a face-saving way out.  Name-calling and self-righteous bloviating over "sincere apologies" has put us back to Go.  In Arbitration.  What a waste of time.  Abe Froman 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Abe, It would be great if you can make that comment on the Arbitration request. This think can still be killed off. Cheers. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This RFC has *really* failed

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

message: Moved my comments from Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_mentioning_Occam.27s_Razor_a_threat.3F, as per suggestion by Tom:
I was invited to comment on this latest dispute. I can move these comments somewhere else if they are too long.  (moved)
This whole edit war is becoming absurd. I have been following and contributing to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Seabhcan.  
MONGO and Seabhcan have been arguing for weeks, if not months. 
Seabhcan refuses to apologize to MONGO, and MONGO takes every flippant comment of Seabhcan's seriously. 
Isn't there a rule that an admin should not boot users who they are personally involved with in an edit war? 
I really don't understand MONGO's reaction. He knows that Seabhcan can't and won't hold his tongue, yet he continues to post on Seabhcans talk page, as SalvNaut wrote: "You are not writing this to provoke Seabhcan, are you?" User_talk:Seabhcan#Lumberjack.3F 
On the otherhand, I really don't understand Seabhcan's reaction to MONGO posting on Seabhcan's talk page.  Seabhcan knows that there is an open RfC against him Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan, yet he continues to post silly comments which only inflame the argument.
This entire ANI about Occam's Razor is absurd.   Obviously SalvNaut is joking, as User:Tariqabjotu, User:Tango, User:Stephan Schulz wrote above.  
Behavioral patterns
In European football (Soccer), Soccer players use histrionics (dramatic representation; theatricals; acting) when there is a call against them.  
MONGO wants everyone to believe that SalvNaut's comments was a threat.  But it is clear to everyone but MONGO that SalvNaut's comment was another ill advised comment. 
There is a pattern here between these editors behavior.  MONGO, Tbeatty and others "provoke Seabhcan" and Seabhcan and SalvNaut are stupid enough to oblige this provoking, with silly comments.   When Seabhcan and SalvNaut say stupid comments, MONGO, Tbeatty and others cry fowl, in dramtic histrionics, harnassing wikipolicy in an attempt to punish these users. 
In a typcial move, recently I strongly criticized Seabhcan. MONGO and User:Morton_devonshire then posted a response on my talk page warning me for this strong criticism of Seabhcan, taking one sentence completly out of context. User_talk:Travb/Archive_8#Not_a_Wiki_Vacation 
SalvNaut, Seabhcan, MONGO, Tbeatty and others are all POV warriors, with strong ideologies, often using the word "truth" to explain their positions. IMHO, all of them use wikipolicy to push their POV. (I admit that at times I can be a POV warrior too.) The only difference between myself, MONGO, Tbeatty and SalvNaut, Seabhcan is that SalvNaut and Seabhcan are not as smart/cunning as MONGO, Tbeatty and others; and don't know how to hold their tongues.
MONGO wrote: "Personally, your alteration to this new username you are using is an obvious pun on Osama bin laden. It borders on a WP:POINT violation."
Another behavioral pattern is the use of wikipolicy.  This is not the first time that I have seen MONGO and others quote wikipolicy completly out of context.  It seems that the strategy is that if they quote enough policy, no matter how dubious, eventually one will stick. 
A casual look at WP:POINT will show that a users name does not disrupt wikipedia.  
This accusation is just as bizarre and laughable as MONGO's threat to ban SalvNaut for "suggesting bodily harm", which led to this ANI.  But unfortunatly it is very common. 
MONGO wrote: "Admin Seabhcan was blocked for making a personal attack on an editor just yesterday..."
Yet another behavioral pattern is for MONGO to bring up other users edit history, in an attempt to use their edit history as a Scarlet letter. Although it is okay for MONGO to personally bring up other users edit history, MONGO gets very angry if a user brings up his own. 
In the past when I have brought up MONGO's own edit history he got very angry: 
:"If you find my edits so problematic, then let's just go straight to arbcom...just you and me...we can dance there all you like...I'm tiring of the falsehoods you are coming up with...so if you want to go straight to arbitration, then let's go."  User_talk:Travb/Archive_8#I.27ll_just_redirect_here 
:"Are you serious....are you so blind to your editing and edit summaries that you fail to understand that you did nothing but attack me and even an arbcom member?..A supporter of a troll. I'm done talking with you...either an Rfc or I'll take this issue to arbcom." User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#Trolling_and_harassment 
Suggestions
# I think that Seabhcan should sincerly apologize to MONGO and stop saying stupid things to MONGO and others, such as calling others a "cabal". This voluntary apology should be unilateral. (i.e. Seabhcan should apologize even if MONGO does not). User_talk:Seabhcan#The_cabal_accusation
# MONGO, Tbeatty and others should voluntary commit to stop posting on each others wikipages. I have voluntarily committed to doing this with another wikiuser, and it has helped immensely.  
# Seabhcan's RfC, opened by Tom Harrison, should be closed.  Either drop the RfC, or move to formal proceedings against Seabhcan.  I think we all agree that the RfC has failed. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#This_RFC_has_failed 
# Seabhcan, MONGO and others should commit voluntarily for one month not to edit the articles they have been arguing on.  This voluntary ban should also be unilateral.   As User:Thatcher131 suggested, I currently am not voting on any AfDs or editing the Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America  for one month (until November 30th) even though the other wikiuser did not. 
# MONGO and Seabhcan should not boot other users they are in edit wars with. 
# Seabhcan should voluntarily promise not to edit protected pages he is an active editor on, such as Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America  This voluntary action should also be unilateral.
# There should be a RfC open about Operation Gladio, which is the foundation of much of the debate.
# Users should voluntarily decide rules of behavior on these controversial pages. We are all adults, why do we have to have third parties decide what we should do?  Can't we work this out ourselves, without outside adult supervision? This was suggested here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#This_RFC_has_failed 
Again, I can move these comments somewhere else if they are too long. (Moved already) Travb (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to point out, I opened the RfC on Seabhcan. Tom Harrison Talk 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tom, sorry I wasn't clear, let me know how I can rewrite this to make this clear. Travb (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I do not think the RfC has failed. It may or may not get Seabhcan to stop calling names and insulting people, but only time will tell. Most of this discussion should probably be on the RfC's talk page, and I don't plan to comment more here. Tom Harrison Talk 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Lots of allegations there.--MONGO 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from ANI

message: Seabhcan doesn't look good on this RfC. Nor do his opponents. Admins are involved on both sides here, for chrissake, and we should expect of admins that they are able to overcome their personal grudges for the good of the project and shake hands with gritted teeth. If they cannot do this, they should submit to an arbitration ruling, but it will not do to have their animosities re-erupt over nonsense like the "Occam's razor" thing above. dab (ᛏ) 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been moved...Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan--MONGO 12:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd take a look over here at the village pump if you're trying to understand how admins could have so many problems. I mean to occupy this much time over "occam's razor" is just such an obvious distraction.. --Cplot 08:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: involved parties should get their act together or move on to RfAr

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