Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Opened on 23:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 07:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
[edit] Involved parties
- MONGO (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
- Seabhcan (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
- Tom harrison (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
- Morton devonshire (talk · contribs)
- Tbeatty (talk · contribs)
- Junglecat (talk · contribs)
- Travb (talk · contribs)
- TDC (talk · contribs)
- SalvNaut (talk · contribs)
[edit] Requests for comment
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan
[edit] Statement by MONGO
Seabhcan has violated civility so many times, I can't count them all, but a few diffs of some of the most egregious comments 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"[1], "I think you need a holiday - or a psychiatrist."[2], "...or force their employers to hire a few more goons to edit"[3], "...Wikipedia seems to be dominated by a bunch of anti-free speach fascists"[4] 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"[5], "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"[6], "Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo!"[7], "To claim that Gladio is a hoax is laughable. I had assumed you were merely ignorant"[8], "Here's some more anti-semitic bilge from Monty"[9] with edit summary "Monty and TDC, brothers in antisemitism".
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"[10] (which he slightly altered after extensive discussion), "Mo-ty needs to learn to put his fanatical nationalism to one side when he edits"[11], "They are here to push their personal nationalistic bias. History, citation, reality, take a back seat to promotion of their personal myths."[12], "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" [13], "The problem is that Americans are uniquely defensive of what they think should be true, rather than what is true"[14], 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)"[15].
Seabhcan has abused his admin tools violating Wikipedia:Protection policy in which he edited the article Operation Gladio several times in one 24 hour period, "rm Hoax banner. What idiot put that there?", [16], [17] and to avoid violating WP:3RR, on his next edit, he protected the page on his preferred version.[18], [19]. Seabhcan also edited the protected article Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, [20] and there was discussion regarding this issue[21]. Seabhcan has also recently (11/12/2006) violated the three revert rule and was blocked for three hours.[22], and was blocked again on 11/25/2006 for a no personal attacks policy violation[23]. 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[24].
As shown in the efforts to resolve the dispute linked in the section above, for six months now, there have repeated attempts to get Seabhcan to try and follow WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and to work more cooperatively with other editors. Instead, what has happened is once he knew that he had an Rfc, he has become even more insulting, more incivil and more difficult to deal with. He continues to fail to understand, as an administrator that Wikipedia is not a battleground. There has been almost zero evidence that he sees any problems with his civility or his abuse of admin tools. According to comments made by Seabhcan in this thread from the talkpage of his Rfc, he is unwilling to find compromise, even though myself and Tom Harrison both explained what needed to be done. He initially seemed to agree with each of us, however, his edits since, demonstrate zero evidence that he is interested in actually working cooperatively. Seabhcan seems to prefer to continue to refer to those he is in editing disputes as a "cabal", nationalistic" or simply that we are "trolling". Lastly, it should be mentioned now, (since I will forward the information via email if the case is accepted), that after having a dispute with me regarding a poor choice on my part of issuing an indefinite block warning, Seabhcan then decided to send two emails to me in which he attempted to provoke a reaction from me. He has acknowledged that he did send the emails.[25] A few days ago, I gestured to Seabhcan what was expected...I clearly stated I was "asking for reform only" and his last comment in that immediate thread consisted of "...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."[26]
Response by MONGO to Comments by Travb The only edits I have ever done to the Operation Gladio article were to unprotect the page and remove the protection template.[27] I have virtually zero involvement regarding the Ganser issue. The only places I encounter Seabhcan are on the articles related to the events of 9/11.--MONGO 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:Seabhcan
I won't re-defend the diffs Mongo has pasted in above. All were already posted on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan and discussed there. Suffice to say that I hold that the evidence of incivility is cut from the context of conversations going back 6 months in which the incivility was on all sides. Details are discussed on the RfC. There are also a number of comments on that RfC which explain the situation, including the only one by a completely uninvolved editor:
- "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)"
On that RfC, (despite what he claims above) neither Mongo, nor his friends, raised any possibility of settlement or compromise. What they want is blood. They bully and abuse their way across wikipedia, and when they meet an 'un-bullyable' editor such as myself, who gives as good as he takes, they freak out. Part of this freakout is the RfC and the Arbitration. Another example is massive overreaction to the tiniest perceived slight. Yesterday Mongo threatened to block User:SalvNaut indefinitely. His crime? Making a pun on "Occam's Razer". Mongo chose to take this as a personal threat and only an extensive discussion on AN/I forced him to back down. One of the uninvolved users on AN/I advised Mongo politely on the talk page:
- There was no allusion of personal injury, vague or otherwise. Mongo, I suggest you go for a walk or something and calm down - you're just making a fool of yourself. --Tango 16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo then warned Tango for `incivility'. User:SalvNaut is a friend of mine and so part of the 'them' Mongo is fighting.
Like the RfC, this Arbitration is a waste of community time. Even if I was banned completely from wikipedia, as Mongo wants, another editor would stand up to him in the end and we would be back here again.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on Morton Devonshire's Statement: Most of the diffs presented are in relation to the dispute over whether Dr. Daniele Ganser's book on Gladio (the only one in the English language) is acceptable as a source. The book is peer-reviewed and Ganser works at Switzerland's top University. To Morty and his friends Ganser's work is a red rag to a bull. Morty claimed Ganser was a conspiracy theorist, a 'loon', that I was a conspiracy theorist, that I was 'pushing nonsense' and `hoaxes', that the entire subject was a hoax, that Dr. Ganser is antisemitic, that the book was trash, lies, etc.
- But then he made a mistake. He claimed that Ganser's book was based on `tabloid' sources. I challenged him to name which of Ganser's 960 sources were tabloid, and Morty had to admit he hadn't even read the book.
- What is this kind of behaviour if not trollish? Morty wasted the time of the community for 2 months arguing using emotive, abusive language, and it turns out he hasn't read the book and doesn't know what he's talking about! If I get banned by the community for having a sharp tongue for such people as Morty, so be it. I don't wish to be part of such a community. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 12:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on start of Arbitration: Well, here we all are! Isn't this exciting? Unfortunately, I won't be joining in the fun. I'll be away on unavoidable business for at least a week. If all goes well, I'll be logging on next on Tuesday 5th December. I'll curious to find out then whether I've been banned in my absents. So, in case I don't edit wikipedia again, Good luck to you all and have a good Christmas. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:Tom harrison
Seabhcan said above, "On that RfC, (despite what he claims above) neither Mongo, nor his friends, raised any possibility of settlement or compromise. What they want is blood." Seabhcan knows very well that is not the case. I opened the RfC, and I said several times, there and elsewhere, that all I want is for him to stop calling names and insulting people. That is still all that I want. In reply to those offers, he made clear that it is his moral duty to call other users "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists" when they are that, and he added that they were in this case.[28] His misuse of admin tools is worrying, but may just be a one-time lapse of judgement. Disruptive incivility and personal attacks are the problem. These pages are already hard to work on, and Seabhcan's insults make them harder. Having been through discussion and an RfC, I do not know what else is left but arbitration. Tom Harrison Talk 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:Junglecat
Seabhcan has continued in his attempts to harass users who he disagrees with. His stance is very clear with his nationalistic bias against American users. I find his pestering that he tries to disguise as humor very disturbing in that he uses it in an annoying way, attempts to push the buttons of those he badgers. One would think that the recent RfC that was done to address these civility issues would have prompted him to work with the community and alter this behavior. Instead, the situation appears to have turned for the worse. Overall, he appears to be a disruptive user who has caused enough problems in the areas of controversial political articles. It is not so much the contributions of Seabhcan that is questionable here, but more of a issue dealing with his civility problems and the influence this behavior is having on the Wikipedia community as a whole. I don’t have so much a problem with his bias as I do with his tactics. I have asked him to stop this conduct, and yet I believe that he refuses to rationalize that civility is a must. His endeavors to be an intentional nuisance have created problems, and this is counterproductive overall. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:SalvNaut
I bring here my opinion and my comments from RfC. Adding more: I could somehow imagine that Seabhcan witty, sometimes considered to be difficult, sense of humour, or his bites when he losts his nerves (as we all do), could possibly hurt or disrupt peacefull editing time of some imaginary user (in a galaxy far far away...:). Prove me wrong, but I don't see such user here - all heavily involved have their own "characters" and they too have played on Seabhcan nerves a lot! in the past. (except maybe for Tom harrison, who is preaching peace here (good for him :) and who would preferably like to change Seabhcan's character (bad for him:)). This arbcom was possibly opened to prove something to Seabhcan, as the rule "give me a man, I'll find paragraph for him" usually works. I see the opening of this arbcom as another distraction, a battle between editors, etc. Really, nothing has happened that would require this, imho. (and neither do I flap with razors[29]:) This is going to be a difficult case, though, as some editors make their statements here with grave seriousness. And they insist this is about Seabhcan's conduct only... but still manage to mention Seabhcan's POV, call his views "pet theories" etc ... No sincerity I found here, not much. And a lot of time is wasted already. SalvNaut 23:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by User:SalvNaut: From what I know, this is true that User:Fred Bauder is an involved party here. Even Morton uses disagrement in opinions between Fred Bauder and Seabhcan to blue-up his statement. I have nothing against hearing Fred's opinion, I'd like to, but when it comes to decisions... SalvNaut 22:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:Thomas Basboll
It is instructive to look at Mongo's examples. Seabhcan has said, "This article is [Mongo's] personal kitty-litter and he won't stand to see it defiled with fact or information" [30]. Mongo takes this as an act of incivility by reading it without even a hint of irony or situational awareness. As anyone who looks at the context of that remark will see, Seabhcan was here coming to the aid of a newbie (me) who was being bitten by a terse, dismissive, accusatory and unhelpful editor. He is giving me some much needed support by returning Mongo's incivility to him on my behalf. This move is, of course, not recommended, but I think Seabhcan rightly saw that this could go one of two ways: either the newbie leaves Wikipedia after an early biting (in the teeth of adminstrator!) or someone shows him that it's all in good natured fun. That last point is important. As it turned out, there was nothing especially good natured about Mongo's treatment of me, but Seabhcan's intervention shifted the mood and, at least for a time, gave me the option of reading Mongo's remarks in a more rhetorically interesting way. This, by Mongo's own admission, eventually led to great improvements to the article. Seabhcan can take a good deal of the credit for keeping me at it. The problem here is really that while Mongo and Seabhcan may have comparable degrees of patience, Seabhcan's sense of humour is infinitely more generous.--Thomas Basboll 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:Morton_devonshire
This is really very simple: Seabhcan regularly insults editors[31], and gets away with it because he’s an administrator. When you ask him to stop[32], he insults you some more[33]. Apparently, it’s okay for a Wikipedia administrator to call you a monkey[34], ignorant[35], trollish[36], that your edits are laughable[37], unenlightened[38], silly[39], childish [40], silly[41], childish[42], hebetudinous (i.e. a dullard)[43], that your aims are hypocritical[44], narrow[45], called a censor[46], fanatical nationalist[47], that you’re a caricature of a human being[48], and told you’re only here to push your “nationalist bias”[49], told that something you said was “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard”[50] and badgered repeatedly[51][52][53]. Heck, you can even threaten to use your Admin powers to get your way on articles you edit substantively[54][55], or call Admin Bauder’s opinion stupid if you don’t like the answer he gave to your question about the reliability of a source[56]. Or try to bait editors[57][58][59] . To call you Monty[60], Monty[61], Mo-ty[62], Devon Mortonshire[63], Mo-ty[64], Mo-ty[65], Mo-ty[66], even when he knows your name is Morty[67]. And to admit that you’re trolling[68]. Would we tolerate this sort of thing from a non-Admin, or would we be considering an indef block? Morton devonshire 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statment by User:Travb
In the last Arbcom against MONGO, User:Fred Bauder wrote up the remedies for the Arbcom case, among them was:
- "No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed." :Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Proposed_decision#MONGO_2
The "excessive zeal" was for MONGOs WP:NPA violations against several wikipideans. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Evidence
Some of the dispute betwen MONGO, Seabhcan, and many of the other people in this dispute have centered around Operation Gladio, User:Fred Bauder also has been involved in this dispute between MONGO and Seabhcan personally, deciding that Daniele Ganser who writes on Operation Gladio does not meet WP:RS after Seabhcan asked him to share his opinion, stating "Any American citizen can recognize the phony 9/11 bull." [69][70]
Daniele Ganser is also involved in 9/11 conspiracies, which is the center of the dispute between MONGO and Seabhcan. Both MONGO and Seabhcan gave there opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Ganser. Should User:Fred Bauder who thinks Daniele Ganser's view is "9/11 bull" decide an Arbcom case which central dispute is 9/11?
Suggestions
- If we are too get a completly impartial ArbCom ruling, User:Fred Bauder should recuse himself from this case. Where can I suggest this? What are the formalities? I am not as familar with wikipolicy as other users.
- This case is a very headed debate that centers around US political issues, with several editors, branding Seabhcan as anti-American, including MONGO, MONGO wrote:
" I ask of you is to stop insulting myself and other editors who don't appreciate your anti-American editing patterns" [71] and
"nationalistic bias against American users". above
To help get a completly impartial ArbCom ruling, ALL Admins who are involved with editing US political pages should not be involved in deciding this dipsute.
[edit] Statement by User:Tbeatty
Seabhcan is a condescending and disruptive editor and administrator. He is uncivil as well as tedentious and his contributions to certain political articles is marginable. He should be censured for his abuse of admin tools as well as warned about his behavior.
As usual, MONGO's involvement has attracted a fair number of trolls. The ED trolls seize any opportunity to attack MONGO. Since ArbCom is a forum where editors can historically vent without fear, they come out of the woodwork to get in their digs. ArbCom should send a message to these editors by censuring those who are using the ArbCom process to lodge personal attacks against MONGO or to rehash their long settled gripes.
And finally, it is not Wikipedia's job to give fringe theories a louder voice. There are plenty of whacked out theories espoused all over the world that wouldn't get the light of day in Wikipedia. YEt we allow numerous POV forks on anti-American topics and indeed, allow dubiously sourced claims in the trying to not appear to be American-centric and therefore not neutral. Editors have taken advantage of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and fair-mindedness to push points of view that wholly out of sync with both their due weight and ultimately their factuality. Fringe groups with fringe theories belong at the fringe, not as majority sections in main articles. Editors pushing their conspiracy POV should be warned that doing so harms the Encyclopedia and harms the project. The object is to present the sum of all human knowledge, not create an encyclopedia that school children will have to unlearn because it's filled with false garbage. --Tbeatty 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Torturous Devastating Cudgel
Aside from comments to the contrary, this dispute 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. There is no “cabal” of users trying to take Seabhcan down. I first encountered Seabhcan when politely I asked him to explain his edit of a protected page [72], 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. As an editor who frequents controversial pages and edits articles that tend to provoke a good deal of dispute, I have learned the heard way that extreme care must be taken, and you have to go out of your way to be civil and stay on topic. Unfortunately Seabhcan has not learned this and seems to revel in abusing and insulting fellow editors, and most egregiously, using his administrative abilities to accomplish this. He has his opinions, and he is entitled to them, but that is no excuse for his behavior. Seabhcan could have avoided this with an apology to those he insulted, and a promise to remedy his behavior. Wikipedia is a big enough tent to have lots of POV’s included, even marginal and and those widely seen as delusional, but cases like this tend to reinforce that these editors are so devoted to their pet theories that they have a hard time playing nice with others. Once again, I can only stress that this is primarily about conduct, not his contributions . Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decisions
[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)
- Accept. Dmcdevit·t 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Accept Fred Bauder 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary injunction (none)
[edit] Final decision
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
[edit] Principles
[edit] Administrators
1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses from optimal behavior are acceptable, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved. They should not unblock themselves when blocked (unless in the case that their IP becomes accidentally blocked) or block others with whom they are in a dispute, and they should not protect pages in which they are involved in a conflict, or protect preferred versions of a page in a conflict. See Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Protection policy.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring
2) Edit warring is considered harmful, because it causes ill-will between users and negatively destabilizes articles. Editors are encouraged to explore methods of dispute resolution. The three-revert rule is not an entitlement to any reverts at all.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Civility
3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other; see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Unwarranted accusations and assumptions of bad faith constitute incivility.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Appropriate reaction to harassment
5) Users, especially administrators and others who are involved in controversial decisions, are expected to respond to harassment, and legitimate criticism, in an appropriate way. Some forgiveness may be extended if the harassment is unexpected, but sustained inappropriate reactions are unacceptable.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Findings of Fact
[edit] Background issues
1) Opposing viewpoints regarding the cause of the Collapse of the World Trade Center, 9/11 conspiracy theories and similar controversies lie in the background of this dispute with Seabhcan and a number of other editors advancing conspiracy theories from an anti-American viewpoint [73] and Mongo vigorously opposing what he considers "lunacy" and "ridiculous junk science" [74] and defending what he considers accurate characterizations [75] [76] [77].
- Passed 5 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seabhcan is uncivil
2) Seabhcan (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is persistently uncivil in discussions, and has made personal attacks: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] (more). He was blocked for incivility and personal attacks at 17:58, November 25, 2006.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seabhcan edit wars
3) Seabhcan has edit warred at Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, Operation Gladio, and other related articles. He has been blocked twice for violation of 3RR since November 2006. [85]
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seabhcan misuses his admin tools
4)
- On November 11, Seabhcan protected Operation Gladio [86] in the midst of an edit war [87] and after reverting to his preferred version [88].
- On August 22, 2006 he made a contested edit to a protected page in which he was involved [89].
- He also threatened in an edit summary to block another administrator over a content dispute, while reverting him [90].
- Seabhcan has used the administrative rollback button in content disputes [91], [92], [93].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MONGO misuses his admin tools
5)
- In the midst of an edit war in which he was involved, [94] MONGO (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) blocked an editor [95] for 48 hours without warning minutes before reverting his last edit [96].
- MONGO threatened to block an editor with whom he was in a content dispute [97] (discussion).
- On November 27, he protected [98] Steven_E._Jones, after continued warring over the same content he had already been involved in reverting [99][100].
- On December 6, 2006, MONGO removed the full protection of September 11, 2001 attacks [101], which was protected after a dispute he was involved in.
- On November 13, MONGO unprotected Operation Gladio [102], which was protected during an edit war involving Seabhcan, with whom MONGO was in a dispute. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop#Miltopia_incident.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MONGO's habitual over-reaction
6) MONGO was seriously harassed in the past, and has been harassed to some extent recently, both with respect to the off-wiki drama site, ED, and with respect to his efforts to fight against inclusion of unsourced and poorly sourced information regarding 9/11. In many instances he has reacted inappropriately to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner and misusing and threatening to misuse his administrative tools. This has been compounded by failure to communicate appropriately with other administrators with respect to his problems and actions [103], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#User:Miltopia.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
[edit] MONGO is desysopped
1) For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seabhcan is desysopped
2) For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seabhcan is placed on personal attack parole
3.1) Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Enforcement
[edit] Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
- 11 June 2007, Bucketsofg (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) blocked Seabhcan for incivility in calling another user "dishonest". Bucketsofg 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
