Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Desired outcome
MONGO has a persistent pattern of disruptive editing and personal attacks regarding the "Attack Sites" issue. I would like to see an end to this behavior.

Description
When discussing Attack-Site-related issues, Mongo has "habitually overreacted" and "freely characterizes opponents in a derogatory manner". He regularly "comments on the contributor, not on the content", often attempting to "use someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". He has disruptively edited policy pages by repeatedly inserting various texts without first proposing the texts on the talk page and generating a strong consensus for their inclusion.

December Arbcom Case

 * Mongo has a long history of disruptive behavior. A December 2006 Arbcom case was filed against MONGO, with much evidence presented accusing Mongo of incivility and personal attacks.


 * Arbcom held that Mongo has a "habitual over-reaction" in dealing with the subject of Attack Sites: "In many instances he has reacted inappropriately to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner". (Emphasis mine)


 * Mongo has a long past history of personal attacks. To quote a few of the the most relevant instances from his 2006 case, just to establish that a longstanding pattern:--
 * Calls Miltopia a "moronic troll".
 * Says Gentgee is an "admin that supports harassment"
 * Says Luna Santin is an "admin that supports harassment.


 * As a result of that Arbcom case, Mongo was desysopped.

Continued personal attacks
While we might have hoped that the December Arbcom case would have led him to change his ways, regrettably MONGO has chosen to continue this same problematic behavior.


 * A month ago, MONGO was warned by an admin and then briefly blocked for engaging in personal attacks made at WT:NPA.


 * Today, Mongo accused DanT of 'participating in a website that stalks people'.         I feel this is a textbook example of a Personal Attack-- "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."  More seriously, MONGO's comment, although not explicitly stating this, strongly implies that DanT has been involved in criminal stalking-- an EXTREMELY serious charge.


 * Today, MONGO accused me (Alecmconroy) of being an advocate for the recreation of a WP article Encyclopedia Dramatica-- another instance of MONGO's habit of "commenting on the contributor, not on the content".  It's also particularly frustrating, since although MONGO was correct that I was involved the discussion, he neglected to mention that I had actually sided AGAINST the recreation.


 * His edit summaries at NPA have frequently "commented on the contributor, rather than the content".
 * "rv another ED contributor..."
 * "revert, known ED contributor"
 * "the only dispute is by those who contribute to WR."
 * "not much to dispute, unless your an ED or WR partisan"


 * Mongo attacked admin GTBacchus, saying "GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows. You folks really should get busy writing an encyclopedia instead of being angry that this policy was protected on the "wrong version"...seriously, 2 million articles await you." (emphasis mine)


 * Mongo, discussing this RFC, says: ".I won't be party to your Rfc...I see it as blatant harassment and won't tolerate it." (emphasis mine)

Continued disruptive editing

 * Three weeks ago, Mongo was again reported to ANI for disruptive edit warring-- making ten reverts over the span of a few days-- potentially "gaming 3RR".
 * In the ANI discussion that followed, Mongo promised to abide by a 1RR on WP:NPA.


 * Mongo has AGAIN come to NPA and repeatedly reinserted text against consensus. AGAIN the page has been protected and disrupted.  In doing so, MONGO has either outright broken or at least gamed his earlier pledge to abide by 1RR.


 * Despite widespread opposition and lack of any consensus, MONGO has reinserted Attack-Site-related text into WP:NPA a total of nineteen times:

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, Wikipedia:Civility
 * Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Three-revert Rule

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * ANI discussion of 17 October
 * ANI Discussion of 25 October
 * Arbcom Case of December 2006
 * Extensive discussion at WT:NPA

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Alecmconroy 07:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Viridae Talk 09:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * *Dan T.* 12:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * spryde | talk  12:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * His disruptive editing has led to the protection of WP:NPA mutiple times in recent months. His persistent personal attacks on other participants need to end, or he needs to be shown the exit door.  GRBerry 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus Can Change, but while the current situation re:BADSITES, is the consensus of Wikipedia, MONGO should reasonably be expected to abide by it. SirFozzie 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MONGO needs, as we all do, to abide by core principles like consensus and civility. If unable to do so, he may need to be reminded that the door Miltopia was shown is also available for him. I truly hope this won't be necessary, as I do see the good intentions and the good contributions, but the disruption and drama caused by this user currently outweigh the good he is doing. I say this with all regret. John (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've observed disruptive editing by MONGO in other areas of the project as well, which I'll expand on below. Cla68 (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MONGO has been disruptive and uncivil for a long time. Everyking (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks and incivility will almost never help a situation, and will almost always escalate the dispute; we need editors who can attempt to de-escalate disputes. Firsfron of Ronchester  09:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with GRBerry, although the issue is complicated a bit by the fact that MONGO remains a constructive contributor to mainspace, relative to his editing in which few problems seem to have arisen; it is no longer plain, though, that the net effect on the project of his participation is positive. Joe (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In synchrony with the cannon fodder and Wikilawyering used to give the upper hand to certain pov stakeholder groups (at the expense of npov, truth, and mere facts), MONGO at times seems to be given far too much leeway, contributing to the often egregious double standards extant in various corners of the Wiki. The amiable smile Jimbo flashed this morning contrasts sharply with the unnecessarily hostile editing environment surrounding certain controversial topic areas, and at times MONGO seems to personify the double standards that only serve to degrade the Wiki's signal to noise ratio.  Ombudsman (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Response
''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.'' ''

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
MILTOPIA was a "moronic troll" who is now banned for exactly that. Distant past is distant past. Alecmconroy is an advocate for having an article on ED, per discussion on WikiEN-l. MONGO was viciously attacked by ED, if you try to push ED to MONGO then you are harassing him, by definition. This much is blindingly obvious to any outside observer, so, Alec, don't do that because it does not help.

This RfC amounts to "we disagree with MONGO and he won't shut up". It is pointless and vindictive, especially since MONGO seems to have proposed a very good form of words that is gaining some support on the talk page.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Guy (Help!) 10:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) SqueakBox 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) RfC appears to have been filed to gain leverage in the WP:NPA dispute. Addhoc 13:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Guy couldn't have put it better. ^demon[omg plz]  13:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree with Guy. MONGO is MONGO. There is no doubt in my mind that his overall  contribution to Wikipedia has been enormous. I see him as actively trying to improve his reactive behavior. Specific blocks when appropriate are fine. But I do not see the point of this general RFC. Mattisse  13:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I wouldn't say "moronic" exactly, but I have to agree with the notions laid out here by Guy. Further, we shouldn't forget that consensus is found through editing, not through endless discussing in circles — esp. closed circles that appear to assume less than good faith with one very prolific long-term contributor. Not saying that MONGO has never displayed any problematic character traits - but precisely because of that WP:AGF and WP:BOLD are all the more applicable here, and an RfC seems unconstructive and uncooperative and in fact even deliberately so. |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 14:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Although I'm not exactly happy with the use of language in Guy's "Outside View" (not saying that it's foul, just a bit crude), I agree with Dorftrottel's take on this. I dunno why, but this RfC has a certain "Created in Bad Faith" feel to it.  Avec n a t  ...Le Wikipédia  Prends Des Forces. 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Classic use of dispute resolution to harass a user! (Hypnosadist )  15:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Crockspot 15:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) I am too diplomatic to use the word "moronic", but the rest is correct. - Jehochman  Talk 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Bastique 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) I'm very sorry to see that attempts to bait Mongo continue.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) It should be noted that many of the "evidence" links in this RFC are reverts of Miltopia.  szyslak  20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Indeed. -- Acalamari 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) This is an attempt by those who support harassment and attacks by linking to attack sites, to harass an editor who has been viciously attacked in the past, and bravely stands in their way. -- Crum375 (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Per Jehochman and per SlimVirgin. ElinorD (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) This baiting of MONGO has to stop rogerd (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Mustn't say "moronic troll," dear; it might hurt someone's feelings. Otherwise, yes. Tom Harrison Talk 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Per Crum375, with the exception that I agree that "moronic troll" may not be the best term. Miltopia is far from moronic. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Sarah 02:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) When will the harassment of MONGO end?  --DHeyward (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Seems like an edit dispute, people taking Wikipedia a little too seriously (it's amazing what a few months away from en.wikipedia will do to you). The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Agree with the same "restrictions" as Dorftrottel and Tom Harrison. Str1977 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Agree. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Yes -  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  17:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Agree. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Yep. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) This RfC is unhelpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) This is a Secret account 19:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) This looks like an extrapolation of the concept of an ad hominem attack - filing an RfC on the editor, not the content.  Sheffield Steel talkstalk 18:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Captain  panda  04:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

View
Per Addhoc and Guy above, this seems to be a misuse of process to advance some agenda. The page protection and any related admin actions need to be looked at, and there are questions of COI. This may need to go to arbitration. Tom Harrison Talk 13:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:


 * 1) Crockspot 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - Jehochman  Talk 16:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This RFC is harassment. -- Crum375 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) ElinorD (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) rogerd (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes. Further, I do not actually see any evidence of the users certifying actually trying to resolve the purported dispute, the links they give don't actually demonstrate that they are in good faith trying to resolve anything in particular. ++Lar: t/c 23:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse, tentatively. An RfAr focusing on individual users' conduct and actions rather than issues of community consensus and general paradigms may be useful at this stage. |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 02:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Sarah 02:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Tom is always right. --DHeyward (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Agree. Str1977 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes -  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) This RFC has been useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the ED-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with. Thanks! FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) It has the appearance of abuse to me. I endorse Lar's view. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) What Felonious said. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) This is a Secret account 19:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved View
A few points...


 * MILTOPIA may have been a moronic troll in the views of some but by MONGO calling him that
 * 1) Did not assume good faith as he was making valid arguments
 * 2) Attacked the editor, not the content
 * 3) Did not do anything to advance the issue or make headway in what was and now is again a contentious issue.
 * Alecmconroy is an editor in good standing here on the opposite side of the debate with MONGO. Based on the WikiEN-l postings, he is advocating an ED article for the right reasons not to harass MONGO. We are here to build an encyclopedia based on using reliable sources that verify notable content that meets our guidelines. That is what he wants. He acknowledges that it does not meet our current standards and will not add it. As an uninvolved party to that debate, it is blindingly obvious to me and any other reasonable editor reading those postings.

The point of this RFC is not because we disagree with him, it is because he is, by the very definition, disruptively editing by re-adding material that has the same effect. His version has been roundly rejected by numerous editors. He even agreed to the past consensus version and by blindingly adding material known to be disputed, rejected by more than one person, and the source of the past edit wars without discussion, he is tendentiously editing. From our guideline on tendentious editing here are some of the characteristics of problem editors:


 * You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others
 * You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
 * Righting Great Wrongs

Also, he is not a neutral person in this debate. He has been wronged before (as noted above) and appears not to be acting from a neutral point of view. He is not assuming good faith and repeatedly violates civility using edit summaries to disparage the other editor based on association and not based his or her argument as shown by the evidence above.

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) spryde  | <font color="#000">talk  12:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Dan T.* 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Viridae Talk  13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Supporting BADSITES is NOT a problem at all.  But tendentious disruptive editing and incessant personal attacks are a problem. Alecmconroy 15:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Catchpole (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved View
Civility, and No Personal Attacks, if they are to be meaningful, must be applied in an evenhanded manner. The fact that somebody has made great contributions to Wikipedia, and/or has lots of friends, does not give them a blank check to be uncivil and abusive and then dismiss all criticisms of their behavior as "harassment". Conversely, the fact that somebody is less well-liked does not give anybody else a blank check to engage in namecalling aimed at them; not even banned users should be publicly attacked as "moronic trolls" or such. Somebody who is insistent that parts of NPA be enforced strictly or strengthened should be especially careful not to violate other parts of it themselves; he who is without sin should throw the first stone.


 * 1) *Dan T.* 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I have repeatedly stated this and reiterate my support of this. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde  | <font color="#000">talk  14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) The rules must be the same for everyone and enforced fairly.  <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) —Random832 16:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  John (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Viridae Talk  03:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Joe (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Travb (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Catchpole (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) GRBerry (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Ombudsman (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

View of Crockspot
First, the edit that MONGO made has been mischaracterized, and it seems obvious that those who are objecting to it did not even read the content of the edit before doing so. MONGO has made a quite significant shift in the character of the edit from his previous wording. This RFC appears to be an attempt to simply further harass MONGO, and is supported by editors who regularly participate at one of the harassment sites in question. Other user conduct RfC's may be in order, possibly even arbitration. - Crockspot 15:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) - Jehochman  Talk 16:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Any arbitration is likely to be a circus, but I can't see any of this being resolved in any other way. —Random832 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Arbcom is the only way to finish this for good.  <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  16:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree that this looks like harassment of Mongo.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Of course. -- Acalamari 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Agreed. -- Crum375 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Tom Harrison Talk 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) ElinorD (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) I wish I could see something else in this RfC, but there is no excuse for deliberately distressing a fellow user—one who has already come a long way in order to compromise with differing views—by means of putting even more unnecessary load on an otherwise useful Wikipedia process. |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 02:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Arbitration may not even be necessary just as it wasn't necessary for Miltopia.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Obviously I strongly disagree with much of this, but I do think an arbitration case will be a lot more useful than this ever will be. As long as it isn't going to be a repeat of the last one; we need an actual ruling, not banning a few obvious trolls as a copout. -Amarkov moo! 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Agree. Str1977 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Agree -  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  17:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Agree. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Yes, this is a fair statement of fact. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Sarah 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) This RFC doesn't look like a misuse of process to harass Mongo, it is an abuse of process meant to harass Mongo. And kudos to Mongo for ignoring the trolls and troublemakers. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain  <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  04:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough already
We, the undersigned, are of the view that there is slim to no chance of this RfC achieving anything other than further prolonging a dispute. Close and move on.

In support:
 * 1) Guy (Help!) 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Can't we all get along? <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn   (Ni!)  16:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) <font color="007FFF">Mattisse  16:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Whichever side (if any) you agree with, there's really no way to deny the basic futility of this process in this case. —Random832 17:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Docg 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This is going to, as every other discussion surrounding this particular group of editors has in the past, turn into a grade-A clusterf*ck. Like Kwsn says: can't we all just get along? If that doesn't work, ArbCom is thataway. This RFC will not solve anything. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) SqueakBox 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6)  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7)  szyslak  20:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Close this. -- Acalamari 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) This RFC is harassment and will achieve nothing. -- Crum375 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) ElinorD (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) The edits cited are from months ago and the way this RFC is framed offers no way forward. -- Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 12)  Avec nat | <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:blue;"> Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.   21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Crockspot (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Yes; this is pointless and divisive, and should be closed. Tom Harrison Talk 00:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Pointless waste of time that is only designed to up the drama.  Seems to be the ultimate goal.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) rogerd (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Str1977 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  16:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) This RfC is wasting time. Enough drama already.  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  17:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) I can't see how anything useful would arise by this. Close it, forget it, and move on. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Indeed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Sarah 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 23)   - Jehochman  Talk 01:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) I'm not sure how this will help anything.  M er cury    01:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Yup... move along, nothing to see here. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 04:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Verily, and with advice to knock it off and leave Mongo alone. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Yes. It's accomplishing nothing .-- Sandahl  04:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain  <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dissenting view
 * 1) If the RfC is unlikely to lead anywhere- why would that be, that editors comments on a request for comment are acknowledged to be unlikely to lead to any change of behaviour from the user or admins? It smacks of favouritism and special treatment, unless those signing this view mean it is a matter for ArbCom rather than RfC?Merkinsmum (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat involved view from User:Mangoe
I dropped out of the whole thing towards the end of the BADSITES case and only tuned in briefly (at another's request) to say that I approved of the way the policy/guideline/etc. rewrites went. In my naivete (or because I was too tired to fight) I assumed that the matter was resolved. Now I see that NPA is being brought back to the disputed state that set off the whole BADSITES case in the first place, and I see that MONGO and Crum375 are perpetrators of this. OK, so it seems we had that whole, long, messy ArbCom case for nothing? Or as AcademyLeader put it, "What's this? Here I thought I wasn't going to be commenting here again." 

I list myself here as "somewhat involved" because of old bad blood between myself and MONGO (and his comrades-in-arms). On the other hand, probably half if not more of those in this are similarly tainted, if not actual participants. MONGO's usual supporters (and BADSITES advocates) are all signed up under "enough already", a signal act of bad faith. Every time this issue has been presented where the community can address it, the BADSITES notion has been rejected; but its proponents simply refuse to give up, and heap calumny on those who call them on their repetitious attempts to evade the repeatedly expressed will of the larger community. Indeed, part of the problem here is that there is an attitude of mistrust based upon the invariably fulfilled suspicion that the issue is going to get BOLDly brought back to the fore.

If this goes to ArbCom again, count me out. This should be treated as a summary judgement stemming from the last case, and NPA should be left locked for, I dunno, several months. The system is broken as long as one of its fundamental principles of conduct is being changed every few days. -- Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Viridae Talk  03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I thought the ArbCom case was a clear defeat for the BADSITES advocates and that a firm policy would easily result.  I thought wrong, and Mangoe's explanation of why this is so is very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Catchpole (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Ombudsman (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside View by Sxeptomaniac
I've been looking in on the whole WP:BADSITES and WP:NPA brawl from time to time. I haven't gotten involved, as just trying to keep up has often taken all the free time I have (I haven't had a lot of time lately, and I tend to take a fair amount of time crafting comments, when I see the need for them). It also hasn't been an attractive debate to get involved in, thanks to the lack of civility.

No personal attacks means no personal attacks, and assume good faith also means assume good faith. It doesn't matter what you're fighting against; stooping to that kind of behavior is not conducive to collaboration. As we see here, people are forced to take time away to address the attacks themselves, rather than the original issue. Lack of civility is tolerated far too often simply because some editor has been here a while, or because they are on certain sides of a debate. It doesn't even matter if they are right. Incivility hurts the project, period.

I don't see how the editors who brought this RfC have tried to "push ED to MONGO" as JzG's Outside view claims above. From what I've read in the evidence, it's been MONGO continually pushing ED (as a way of discounting others' opinions) when it wasn't the topic of discussion, not the other way around. Even Miltopia, now banned for trolling, tried to move the discussion away from ED.

Allowing this RfC to continue probably won't accomplish anything, but shutting it down now certainly won't. At the very least, allowing people to air their grievances in a polite fashion would be wise. Shutting down debate with claims of "harassment" without good evidence of that doesn't help at all.

If I'm wrong on any point, feel free to explain, but it would be wise to use evidence, as the editors bringing the dispute to RfC have done. So far those disputing this RfC have provided no evidence for their claims, in the face of quite a few links otherwise.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Viridae Talk  03:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) It should be abundantly clear that going "OMG HARASSMENT" every time anyone questions MONGO's incivility is stupid. -Amarkov moo! 03:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Cla68 (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6)  Firsfron of Ronchester  09:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Quite right.  Joe (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) GRBerry (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Merkinsmum (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) <font color="007FFF">Mattisse  21:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Ombudsman (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) JoshuaZ (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Cla68
I've observed disruptive editing by MONGO in another area of the project. Here MONGO argues in a disruptive and inappropriate manner with another editor on an article's talk page. As you can see, MONGO's statements weren't helpful to the subject under debate at all and he kept repeating the behavior, even after I suggested that they move their debate over each other's conduct to their user talk pages. The generalized attack in MONGO's last statement in that section is especially revealing and supports the contention and evidence presented in this RfC that his behavior needs correction if he hopes to continue to participate in this project. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Something more recent would be nice, but the problem is definitely there. -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Amarkov
It's clear that nothing short of arbitration will solve this. I'm not sure how necessary this RfC is, since anyone who would actually deny that prior attempts have been made to resolve this is, quite frankly, greatly uninformed or stupid.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -Amarkov moo! 04:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Unless MONGO's behavior changes as a result of this RfC, and it probably won't with so many other editors enabling his behavior by refusing to address it, then arbitration probably will be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) The accusations of bad faith and harassment will make interesting reading on the evidence page. Viridae Talk  05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Merkinsmum
User:Alecmconroy says on the talk page that he did not defend the attack site but in fact is roundly on the opposite side of the debate. He feels very disparaged to be associated with ED (this I'm gathering from his words on this RfC's talk page.) Mongo has a history of claiming that editors are from ED or associated with ED. Of course he's had hastle from ED in the past but that doesn't give him the right to accuse and dismiss innocent editors such as Alec, who aren't even associated with ED in any way and in fact considers himself to be anti such sites, and that he said so in the discussion. Seems a bit pointless to have an Arbcom when there's been one before and it seems to have been disregarded. You know what usually happens to ediitors who do that (indef block)- there shouldn't be special treatment, he should recieve the same treatment other editors would have recieved in his situation, and not given countless chances.

Users who endorse this summary: Dissenting view
 * 1) -Merkinsmum (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) <font color="007FFF">Mattisse  21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If Conroy is not a fan of ED and does not want to be in any way associated with it, please explain why a year after this  he is still raising the issue on the mailing list. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See my answer to your question on talk. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Travb
I recently found an incredible graph by Gmaxwell‎, User:Gmaxwell/adminship map. Some of strongest supporters of Mongo here: ...were all nominated for admin by MONGO. Travb (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) User:Jersey_Devil,
 * 2) User:Tom_harrison ,
 * 3) User:Rogerd,
 * 4) User:Crockspot

This incestuous "you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-your-back approach to promotion and mutual promotion, if true, is a bit scary. It's almost as scary as the herd approach to substantive editing that I've noticed for several of the above-named editors on a number of articles. Editors should attempt to think for themselves and to separate fact from personality. It takes some practice because it requires the overcoming of the genetic programming of several millions of primate years. --NYCJosh (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes you believe they aren't thinking for themselves? Anecdotal graphical analysis?  --Iamunknown 00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, a pattern of group behavior on the editing of several articles. I would give examples, but since this is supposed to be about Mongo I will stop myself here.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Without specific examples, I consider this a personal attack against me. And it isn't the first time Travb has personally attacked me recently. I seem to remember being named and attacked on User:Krimpet's talk page recently. - Crockspot (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Crockspot dear, in the words of... Travb (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's exactly what I thought, nothing to back up your empty words but more personal attacks, now whisked away into the history. Buh-bye. - Crockspot (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Travb, I would strongly recommend you remove or strike that last comment (and possibly apologize as well). Personal attacks do not reflect well when this RfC is about incivility to begin with (I disagree that the original view was an attack, though). Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Mattisse
There is something wrong.

MONGO has been blocked for a total of 2 hours, 15 minutes, 1 second since June 2005, yet it appears to be acknowledged that he has a long history of disruptive editing, whether or not he was "provoked" being irrelevant.

Considering the amount of disruption revolving around MONGO, I was surprised to see that his block record is the following:


 * 1) June 8, 2005 - blocked for 24 hours -
 * 2) June 25, 2005 - blocked for 15 minutes -
 * 3) September 24, 2006 - blocked for 12 hours      - unblocked 1 hour later
 * 4) September 27, 2006 - blocked for 1 second!!! (perhaps admin was intimidated by MONGO)
 * 5) February 21, 2007 - blocked for 24 hours   - unblocked 20 minutes later
 * 6) October 17, 2007 - blocked for 72 hours - unblocked 30 minutes later - ANI "discussion" -

Since June 2005, MONGO has been blocked 5 times. Not counting the first block of 24 hours in June 2005, MONGO has been blocked for a total of two hours 15 minutes, 1 second.

My attempt to understand this under "Discussion" was  used by at least one admin to attack another editor and only one editor's answer was responsive to my concern.

I have been blocked much more than this, at times with no explanation and with no warning, whether or not I was "provoked". Evidently Wikipedia is a places of "haves" and "have nots". It is not possible for a person like me to understand all the behind-the-scenes activities at Wikipedia, nor what is "really" going on, except that it has an unsavory cast.

It appears that it is not possible to block MONGO regardless of his behavior.

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) <font color="007FFF">Mattisse  15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Merkinsmum (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Ombudsman (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) It's a shame that the rules aren't being applied evenly. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) SalvNaut (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to Outside View of Mattisse
If the Arbcom is going to reject the case, as seems to be the case at this point in time, then there must be a means of blocking MONGO when needed. Otherwise, Wikipedia is without viable means to stop his uncivil behavior and edit-warring behavior, given history above that a block never lasts more that 1/2 hour.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) <font color="007FFF">Mattisse  18:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Dan T.* (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) The premise behind unblocking MONGO has always been that only a block won't help. But if we aren't allowed to use Arbcom, a block is going to have to be enough. -Amarkov moo! 00:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
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.