Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MONGO 3

Can we try not to make personal attacks during discussions of NPA?
I don't see how calling somebody a "moronic troll" (whether or not it's true!) during a discussion relating to WP:NPA is a productive or desirable thing to do; that policy, after all, does say "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."

And who, exactly, is "trying to push ED to MONGO", which is "harrassing him by definition"? Having a polite, constructive discussion on the mailing list (where MONGO doesn't even seem to be a current participant) over whether that site meets notability and sourcing criteria to have an article is not harrassment by any conceivable definition. *Dan T.* 12:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the statement that violating WP:NPA is not productive or desirable. I also would like to see it end. However, I am not understanding what the desired outcome of this RFC is, other than to continue to utilize the remedies already at hand. -- Mattisse 14:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me stress this
This RfC is not a way to get an upper hand in the dispute. MONGO is encouraged to participate as long as he leaves the personal attacks at home. Consensus cannot be gained without having all points of view. To think this this is an attempt to sway the dispute is extreme bad faith. Viridae Talk 14:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Most sad that those who are supporting MONGO are spending more time attacking others than actually defending his actions. Dynamite debating tactic, but it's a wasted opportunity to actually resolve something. --Alecmconroy 15:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may, but does that make personal attacks productive or helpful? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask Argyriou, who posted a comment below that mimics the behavior he complains about in MONGO. Regarding calling a banned editor a "moronic troll", I think it's rarely helpful to call folks trolls, even when they fit the description. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that a certain "side" is doing it right. I see personal attacks all around, and a general disregard for the notion that we should refrain from them. I think it's childish and sad. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Definition of Insanity
''Note, the use of insanity here refers not to MONGO in any way. The reference is that _I_ would be insane if I did not file this RFC, but somehow expected that just doing nothing would lead MONGO to change his behavior. ''

There's an old adage that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting to get different results.

There's been of questions of my motivations in bringing this RFC, as, of course, there always are in any RFC. Let me just say-- it is NOT as simple as "I have a policy dispute with MONGO". MONGO has a behavior problem. I don't think anyone can seriously doubt that anymore. We can either step up and address it now, or we can let it grow worse. Simply ignoring it, hoping it will go away, and asking nicely has not produced results.

If Mongo didn't figure out his actions were inappropriate the first 19 times he reinserted text that lacked consensus, how is he ever supposed to learn, unless we do something like an RFC or an Arbcom case???

Clearly, just asking MONGO nicely "Please don't insert text that doesn't have consensus" hasn't produced any results for the past 19 times-- why should we expect just asking him a 20th time on a talk page will produce anything but an eventual 20th disruptive edit?

Or take MONGO's personal attack problem. Mongo's been desysopped and he's received more warnings that we can count. If that hasn't successfully communicated to MONGO that his personal attacks aren't appropriate, how is he ever supposed to learn not to attack others, unless we do something like an RFC or and Arbcom case?

Asking him nicely to "Comment on the content, not on the contributor" hasn't worked. Warnings from Admins and Arbcom didn't work. Even desysopping him hasn't worked.

What can we do, but either dejectedly accept that MONGO is going to be attacking people forever, or else accept that we have to actively take some steps like this RFC to try to help bring an end to the behavior? --Alecmconroy 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alecmconroy, as an uninvolved administrator, I suggest you immediately refactor the above section. It looks like you are suggesting that MONGO suffers from a mental condition.  That is clearly over the line into the territory of personal attacks. - Jehochman  Talk 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope-- a hypothetical version of myself is the insane one, not MONGO-- I've clarified. Thanks for the suggestion-- I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea. --Alecmconroy 14:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference to "insanity" is as part of an old adage, not any serious attempt to imply any actual mental conditions. *Dan T.* 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict}
 * Personally, I do not see the above statement as an attack on MONGO's mental condition: There's an old adage that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting to get different results. It is just a common statement that addresses behavior that we all engage in at times.   Mattisse  14:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, see here for the adage.  spryde |  talk  14:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So how many RFC/ANI's/ArbComs have been filed against MONGO with exactly the same result? When do we stop calling this repetitive process "insanity" and start calling it "harassment". Stop filing these ridiculous RFC's which all end the same way. Or, as someone pointed out above, maybe the "close scrutiny of all involved will" end the cycle. --DHeyward (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We start calling it harassment when it's demonstrated that it actually IS harassment. Since nobody is even claiming anymore that MONGO is not guilty of the accusations, that seems rather unlikely. -Amarkov moo! 06:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MONGO isn't guilty of the accusations. But apparently the people who continually bring these same complaints don't seem to be able to hear the community tell them that they are wrong.  Since defense of MONGO has fallen on deaf ears and the harassment continues, the next thing to try is offense.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is denying that he is incivil. It just isn't happening. Defense of MONGO comes in the form of "well, but look, this OTHER person was incivil too! Everything that MONGO did was their fault for needling him!" -Amarkov moo! 06:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody accused him of being incivil in this RFC. Or is it your contention that we are in a continuous loop of rehashing previous RFC and ArbComs and ANI's until you get your way?  Sounds like your definition above and sounds like it's not going to happen. --DHeyward (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's accusing him of being incivil???  Of course we are!  Half the RFC is about MONGO's incivility.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments like this make me worry that MONGO supporters may not even have read the complaint before rushing to his aid. Please everyone-- read the specific behaviors being disputed-- edit warring and personal attacks-- that's it.  It's about personal attacks I can't seem to get stopped no matter how hard I try, and disruptive editing where MONGO just inserts whatever he wants into a policy page over and over and over.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A concrete example of why the RFC got filed
A very interesting exchange occurred just a moment ago, and I thought it would shed some light on why I had no choice but to file an RFC or an Arbcom case.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, ED is basically run by a bunch of criminals or near-criminals who have made a hobby out of stalking-- not just wikistalking but actually stalking, people. They find out where they live, they post pictures of them, they spread slander about them, and they think it's funny. As I understand it, ED is run by some bad, bad people, who do incredibly immoral things.

Now, '''I've never edited ED. Not once, not ever.''' I have ZERO connection to them. And there has never been any serious suggestion that I am.

But, MONGO repeatedly implies, OVER and OVER and OVER-- that I and everyone else who opposed BADSITES are linked to ED.

Now, maybe people with thicker skins don't get bothered by this, but it does bother me, especially since I edit under my own name. MONGO has implied that I am a criminal or a near-criminal. He implied that I am somehow involved in a criminal or near-criminal conspiracy to stalk and harass people. I've KNOWN harassment victims, and I know what kind of hell they go through. It's a BIG deal.

So when MONGO makes an edit summary saying "Only people who oppose this are ED editors"-- and I'm the one who opposed it-- how can I NOT get really, really really upset about that? What can I do but try to take whatever step necessary to stop MONGO from snidely implying I'm a freakin criminal?

--

Now, maybe I'm over-reacting you might say. Everyone knows MONGO is just overgeneralizing. Well, look what just happened a moment ago. A user at WT:NPA posted the following statement:


 * As far as i know Alec has never denighed his connection to ED.

So there ya have it boys and girls. Mongo's little snide rumors and false-generalizations had completely convinced an otherwise uninvolved editor that not only WAS I one of the CRIMINALS from ED, but that I had never even denied it.

Obviously, that particular editor had since been told in no uncertain terms that the rumor being spread is entirely baseless. But I hope everyone sees now why I had absolutely no choice but to file an RFC. It was either that or sit back and let MONGO repeat his little implication over and over, until even more people believed I was a criminal.

And just one more thing... There _IS_ a real world out there, the ED people are going to cross the line one day and not just bend the law but break it into pieces (assuming they haven't already). And what am I supposed to do when a bunch of cops show up at my door, saying that they read allegations that I was someone who was involved in ED??? Oh, we'll get it straightened out eventually, but it'll be a really miserable and scary day. I'm not gonna sit back and wait for that day to happen, thank you-- I'll just do whatever work it takes to get MONGO to stop making these kinds of implications right now. -- Alecmconroy (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So to summarize, you don't want scurrilous things linked to your name because of real world consequences and you're going to ask for sanctions for anyone who links your name to scurrilous things, AND you support allowing links to Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia Review? Clealy, sir, have proved internaly consistant. -- AntiCorp (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)\
 * Does Alecmconroy support allowing links to ED and WR? Where did he claim that? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because our encyclopedia has to cover bad people, that doesn't mean it's okay to engage in similar tactics. Alecmconroy (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you saying, that Mongo has libeled you? Tom Harrison Talk 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the english definition of the word "libeled" as "generally going around spreading bad untrue things", absolutely he has-- and this RFC is an attempt to get him to stop-- or at least stop doing it on-wiki.


 * In the legal definition of "libel", with judges and juries and lawyers-- no, I doubt think MONGO has libeled me in that sense. In the US at least, we grant very very very wide latitude about what kind of speech is actually the kind you could go into court and collect money for.  It's why all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists aren't being sued out of existence-- if you genuinely believe something, you're not committing libel, no matter how crazy it is.


 * I'm a bit of a free speech nut as is, so rest assured-- no matter what MONGO says about me, you can expect to me fight for his right to say it. And if MONGO makes a  blog that becomes notable, I certainly hope I'd be there fighting for our right to link to it in articles, no matter what his blog says about me. --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, you said to correct you if you're wrong - you're wrong. Your assertions about the moral qualities of people at ED are irrelevant, unprofessional, destructive, and incorrect. If you ever find yourself needing to conclude that somebody else is a "bad, bad person," then (a) you do not understand that person, not having walked a single step in their shoes, and (b) that you're on the wrong train of thought anyway. If you're going to accuse people of "crimes", are you willing to back that up? What do you know about ED's activities? Find a way never to talk about other people's moral qualities, and then you'll be modeling the behavior that you request from MONGO and others. Until then, you're clearly not in a position to talk. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As always, you speak wisdom. MY point in mentioning all the bad things I've heard was to point out just how frustrating it is to have those sorts of slanders leveled at me.  Some caveats I should have added are: 1) ED is a wiki, and like any wiki, you can expect many, even most of its users are going to be be totally good-faith people.  and 2) I only heard the bad things at the core of ED from the very people who are falsely accusing ME of things--- so I should have been more careful to specifically attribute the allegations to them, rather than that just stating them.


 * That's the problem with slanders and rumors. Ya hear 'em enough and ya can't help but start to think they're true, even when you should know better. -Alecmconroy (talk)

I commented at the bottom, then saw someone had made a similar comment up here.:)

ED are not criminals, in that they have never been convicted of any offence related to their use of their site or convicted for any stalking in real life as far as I know. Just saying (please no-one beat me for it:)) As to publishing people's addresses/real names, it's a wiki so obviously like on here, wrong'uns vandals etc occassionally post such things, but any names and addresses are usually removed as they are generally against the rules on ED.  If they post names its when they have already been published/claimed on other sites (such as WR) or media I think.

Anyway, as regards Mongo- I don't know all the ins and outs but it does seem to me that any other editor who's behaved as he has long term on wikipedia would be indef. blocked. Please no-one block me for saying this as I love editing on wikipedia and am commenting in an RfC.

As to rumours etc- if I hear them it just makes me curious so I investigate them to form my own opinion for myself.Merkinsmum (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The double standard is alive and well
Apparently, disfavored people like Miltopia can get banned for "low-level trolling" (meaning that people don't like him, even if they can't point their finger on a specific rule violation sufficient to justify the ban), but others like MONGO can be as uncivil as they like, and everybody will laugh it off as "That's just MONGO being MONGO", and any attempt to criticize it is "harassment". -- *Dan T.* (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. And which category do you fall into? ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How many wrongs does it take to make a right? How many personal attacks equal not-a-personal-attack? How much mud does it take until everybody's clean? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The point here is that someone is complaining about the mud on someone else when they are muddy as well. Dtobias complains that people laugh off MONGO's purported incivility without holding him accountable. Yet Dtobias isn't held accountable for his own incivility. If we're seeking equal treatment for all incivility then there is more than one editor who needs to be held accountable.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The way to make that point is not to say, "oh yeah, well you're uncivil, too!" That's a childish way to address the issue. A more adult approach would be to acknowledge that plenty of incivility has occurred, and to talk maturely and rationally about to to prevent more of the same. Simply adding more personal attacks to the list isn't going to help. If MONGO is uncivil and others are uncivil to him, the solution is not to pretend that MONGO isn't uncivil, or that his incivility is excused by someone else's. The solution is to hold everyone to a high standard, for each of us who cares about Wikipedia to ModelDesiredBehavior, and for people who are unable to post without insulting anybody to log off and go do something else until they're prepared to grow up. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "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." So says Dtobias. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you trying to prove... that I don't always act as I preach, so I'm a hypocrite too? Yeah, I'm not a saint.  I'm human, and sometimes a really annoying one.  I'm not Satan Incarnate either, but I'm certainly not perfect.  In this particular debate, GTBacchus has been much more consistent than I at staying on the moral high ground, remaining civil, and (calmly) criticizing both sides of the debate when they strayed from this.  Perhaps everybody should listen more to him instead of shriller voices like me.  Lots of problems would go away then. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where you are going with that. 1. That did not happen onwiki. 2. This link appears to be purely to harass. Under either WP:NPA policy that eventually gets agreed upon, it can be removed.  spryde |  talk  20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Scrutinize to your heart's content comrades. Please feel free to start at my user page. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You might also want to check to see if any of the participating editors here ever used a sock puppet to vote twice in a Featured Article nomination or ever accused another editor of "living in the same state as a banned user." Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Cabal Speaks
Shouldn't Requests for comment/MONGO 3 be titled The Cabal Speaks?

I've had damn little interaction with MONGO, but when 9 or so admins jump up to say "MONGO isn't a bad person, despite being told, over and over, to tone down the incivility, so you should just go away and not bring another RfC against him", it's really obvious that there's a double standard for admins and their friends, as opposed to the rest of Wikipedia's editors. Argyriou (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the claims against MONGO is that he has "use[d] someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Claiming there's a "cabal", and then dismissing the responses of editors because their supposed membership in that group, would seem to be a violation of that policy. I'd be better to set an example for how editors should act in a dispute. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK... what's your answer, though, to the point that some editors are more equal than others with regard to being held to account for their incivility? I've raised that point, without referring to any "cabal" or "clique" in the process, and have yet to get a reasonable answer. -- *Dan T.* (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My answer, though I presume that you're addressing Will, is that you have engaged in some pretty appalling incivility without being held to account for it. I have never, ever seen anything like that from MONGO. ElinorD (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a smart-ass joke I made, building on a humorously incongruous obscenity used by another person on the list in reference to a user whose username made a funny contrast. How is it relevant to anything here? -- *Dan T.* (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If Argyriou has committed the same type of incivility as MONGO they should be held accountable in the same way. Regarding Dtobias, making obscene jokes about an editor's username is not civil. Dtobias is claiming that MONGO's incivility is so great that he needs to be corrected, but Dtobias engages in incivility himself that appears more harsh than what MONGO is accused of. How shall Dtobias be held accountable?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Has he made a great history of it? No. Oh well, forgive and forget. Viridae Talk 21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that some of us who signed are clearly not members of the cabal or (in my case at least) even admins itself contradicts the claims in this thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I part of the cabal? My problem is that I do not understand what this RfC is supposed to accomplish. An outright ban forever? Is that what is being asked for here? Are there not other actions available to punish or to make the point that MONGO is accountable?   Mattisse  22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In one view, an RfC such as this might have the effect of letting parties know what the community thinks of their actions. In many cases, this makes sense, because perhaps someone is violating community mores without realizing it. In this case... I can't see much good coming from it. Nobody will come away from this realizing that it would be better if they refrained from making personal attacks, because people on both sides are so invested in their desire to insult and badmouth the other side. The fact that senior admins are willing to wade in and sling mud as if they don't know any better... reflects rather poorly on our community. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what any user-conduct RfC is ever supposed to accomplish, other than a delaying action before going to ArbCom, or collecting sufficient data to allow admins to apply the ban-hammer without guilt. There never is any enforceable sanction that's not already available for dealing with people who violate the rules.
 * That said, even though I do think that MONGO gets better treatment because of his relationships with other admins, and that the response does look rather cabalistic, the editors do have a point - there's no real point to having this RfC, except as a required preliminary of going to ArbCom. MONGO has enough supporters that even if some people are able to show that he's behaving like a prick or otherwise breaking the rules, nothing will change. MONGO will continue to be incivil to others, some of whom will probably deserve it in spades. Argyriou (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Argyriou, do you think that claiming some editors are a member of a cabal, and discounting their participation on that basis, is an example of civil behavior? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know how claiming that anybody "deserves" incivility is helpful in any way. Our job isn't to give people what they "deserve" it's to resolve disputes maturely, professionally and effectively, in the interest of building an encyclopedia. No amount of incivility plays any role in that project, no matter how "deserving" you may judge the target to be. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you addressing? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoever's listening, but I was referring to Argyriou's statement, "MONGO will continue to be incivil to others, some of whom will probably deserve it in spades." I fail to see how it's helpful to suggest that people "deserve" incivility. That's kind of like saying people who do things we don't agree with "deserve" to see us shoot ourselves in the foot over it, seeing as it's only ourselves that we hurt when we're uncivil. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Go back and re-read what I wrote. I never explicitly said that there is a cabal. I did say that there is a double standard - that editors like MONGO, who make influential friends, are held to a different standard than those who don't. I see nothing incivil about mentioning such an obvious truth, especially when 15 people jump in to defend the double standard. Argyriou (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "Shouldn't Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3#Enough already be titled The Cabal Speaks?" Why would you write that if you don' think there is a cabal? Your next comment appears to say that their participation in this RfC is a problem: " when 9 or so admins jump up to say "MONGO isn't a bad person...", it's really obvious that there's a double standard for admins and their friends, as opposed to the rest of Wikipedia's editors." Is there a problem with people giving their opinions? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Because my sense of humour is dry and subtle, sometimes. There is a problem when a group of influential admins and editors all jump in to state that seeking to resolve a dispute is useless with the implication that they will support the person whose behavior is questioned against what they see as impertinent attacks, rather than stating reasons that the complaint is unjustified. "This RfC is useless because Guy says it's useless" is not a useful opinion to express in an RfC. Argyriou (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both you and Dtobias seem to be saying that incivility or personal attacks are OK if they're made in the context of what's later described as a joke. I hope that we are all mature enough to realize that offensive jokes are still offensive. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to press on the issue of the word "cabal", I am willing to defend my use of it as not being an attack, but as being descriptive of an actual existing behavior pattern here. I don't consider describing unpleasant behavior patterns to be attacks on the people behaving unpleasantly. Argyriou (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Using an affiliation, even an imagined one, in order to discount an editor's contributions is considered a personal attack. MONGO is being charged with making such an attack when he labelled some editors as "ED contributors", presumably a factual description but possibly imaginary or even humorous. How is calling people "cabal members" less of an attack? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I've been doing my best lately myself to avoid referring to a "cabal" or "clique" or any such thing. I've slipped up a few times probably, but I'm trying anyway.  It's a tempting way to try to explain a situation where people seem to be ganging up, but it's an oversimplification.  *Dan T.* (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When a whole crowd of senior admins decide to use an RfC as an occasion to show that they're not remotely above personal insults... something does seem wrong with our culture. Why are our admins not taking any kind of stand for civility, for instance by... setting an example? Why is it entirely cool to stoop to the level of ad hominem attacks? It's unacceptable when it's directed at MONGO, and it's unacceptable when it comes from MONGO. It's just not ok to make personal attacks, but I get the impression that many Wikipedians think that personal attacks are the best solution to our civility problems. That's a counter-productive mentality. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But it is an opinion with lots of support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? If there's a lot of support for scrapping WP:CIVIL, should we then do it? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should. Or, rather, if there is support for scrapping WP:CIVIL, we should see if a new version can be modified which would be more acceptable.  --Iamunknown 00:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One that says what? "If you have relatively few friends, and low status, be civil.  If you have high status and lots of friends, you can ignore this and be as uncivil as you want, as long as it's to the 'right' people." *Dan T.* (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That might be a bit more Legal realism than this place can handle. Argyriou (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever, Daniel. Feel free to put words in my mouth.  Instead of, ya know, asking me straight-up what my opinion might be.  Cheers,  --Iamunknown 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * O
 * u
 * t
 * d
 * e
 * n
 * t
 * ing... Iamunknown, I think I wasn't entirely clear in my question. I'm not talking about the page WP:CIVIL; I'm talking about the principle that we have to treat each other well in order to work collaboratively. That's a simple fact of life that no agreement among us can change. If we want to work collaboratively with others, then we have to treat each other right. The details of how we write that down can vary; I don't know what our policy page on civility actually says. I expect it makes sense, and reiterates that, if we want to work collaboratively, then we have to treat each other right. If we agree to abandon that, then we've agreed to abandon our project here. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, GTBacchus. I agree that people should endeavour to be civil in inter-project interactions.  I don't think I was very clear when I commented above, but I was speaking specifically about WP:CIVIL, which I - and others - think is not good policy/guideline/whatever.  --Iamunknown 06:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)One problem with our civility policy is deciding what is the difference between telling an unpleasant truth (or expressing an unpleasant opinion) and launching a personal attack. If I say "MONGO commonly attacks other contributors", am I attacking MONGO? Probably. Am I attacking him in a way which breaches WP:NPA? Possibly. I am commenting on the user, not the edit, but in the case of an RfC, that's appropriate behavior. If, on a talk page I say "MONGO, quit being incivil to X", am I making a personal attack? Maybe. If MONGO thinks he's not being incivil to X, then he might think that I'm making a personal attack. If he has a desire to obtain a rhetorical edge over me, and it's really unclear whether he's actually being incivil to X, it might be to his advantage to claim that I am making a personal attack, even if he doesn't actually feel attacked. Even in less stereotyped cases, there are still going to be borderline cases, because people have different levels of sensitivity. I don't think there's a good way to define this sort of thing, except in generalities; the borderline cases will have to be decided by people discussing the issue. Argyriou (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Argyriou, that's not a problem with the civility policy. You're missing the important distinction. If you say that editor X commonly engages in behavior Y, that's perfectly appropriate, as long as the behavior has some relation to the work we're doing here. That's not a violation of AGF; it's not uncivil (unless you phrase it so that it is), and it's not a personal attacks (again, unless you make it into one). If, on the other hand, you say that editor X engages in behavior Y because he's acting in bad faith, then you've just crossed the line. You don't know anything about that person's motivations, and they're furthermore irrelevant. Talk about what people do, but don't assume you know why they do it. Assume that their motivations are pure, and then you'll comment on the content, not the contributor, and you won't run afoul of NPA. Those three pages - AGF, NPA, and CIVIL - are essentially one idea presented three ways, in much the same way as the three pages, NOR, VERIFY and NPOV, are essentially the same idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This RFC is an interesting, from a census point of view. I don't believe in a cabal, but there's no denying that there are some editors who take "Defend Each Other" more seriously than perhaps they should.


 * Saying "Mongo does have a problem, but we shouldn't just banhammer him" is a very valid opinion. Accusing us of being part of a campaign of harassment for raising the issue-- that basically goes beyond the lines of what a reasonable person can seriously believe if they're doing their job and being objective.  I mean-- is the Arbcom that desysopped him for this behavior also a campaign of harassment??


 * That's not to say the editors who currently believe this is a campaign of harassment are acting in outright bad-faith-- it's easy for me to see they're wrong--  I'm in a privileged position because I personally know it's NOT part of some campain of harassment.  But if they seriously believe the story behind the RFC is that "MONGO's doign fine, trolls are just harassing MONGO"-- they have an error in their logic somewhere.  Either they're not looking closely enough, they're believing rumors, they're willing to make attacks for tactical gain, or something.


 * It's a pity this RFC has gotten the response it has.   The way to fix MONGO would be for his FRIENDS to help support him into behaving better.  So long as people just encourage his bad behavior, egging him on rather than reining him in, the most likely long-term prospect of how the MONGO issue will be resolved aren't nearly as positive for the project as they would be if we, as a community, had succeeded in communicating to him that he has a problem.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The way to fix mongo? If there is a problem here, I think you are at least 50% of it. Maybe had you just tried to assume some good faith after he asked you to do so, then you wouldn't be sitting here now looking so silly. Just a suggestion for future reference.--Crunchyman (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith only works so far. If I assume that, by some convoluted scenario, it's actually someone ELSE'S fault that he is incivil, that's just stupidity. -Amarkov moo! 04:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Action leads to reaction. Mongo's appears to have been dealing with a neverending line of wikithugs ready to jump his case if he makes even the most minor of infractions. Seeing the kind of comments you are making makes me understand why his patience is pretty thin at this point.--Crunchyman (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know WHY he is dealing with these people? Because he has been incivil, continually, for TWO YEARS. There is no concievable way to blame it on us for not being nice enough. -Amarkov moo! 04:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Crunchy, I assumed good faith for six months of NPA edit wars, through 19 different instances of MONGO inserting text he KNOWS is controversial directly into a policy page. AGF has been tried, and it failed to resolve the problem.  Asking nicely has been tried, and it also failed to resolve the problem. I wrote a couple essays, I posted to mailing lists, I intentionaly didn't raise MONGO's behavior in the last Arbcom case hoping he would straighten out after it was resolved-- tried, tried, tried.  And now I'm trying this, but sadly, people seem bent on "defending MONGO" straight into a ban by egging him on, feeding his belief that others who complain about his behavior are just out to get him.    --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is almost funny
The lengths people go to to justify bad behaviour. Guess what, an RfC is a legitimate part of the dispute resolution process. We have a dispute, so we are following the recommended process. But the vast majority of contributors to this RfC have been actually supportive of bad behaviour... it is completely untennable. Viridae Talk 21:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we seem pretty committed to the strategy of personally attacking people to show that personal attacks are wrong. If people on either side were trying to set a good example, I'd be much more optimistic about this dispute, but I see editors all around slinging mud like professional trolls. You'd think that people trying to do something they consider righteous would attempt to maintain some kind of moral high ground... but no. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What personal attacks are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the one I was thinking of when I posted was Guy's repetition of the "moronic troll" description of Miltopia. Just because somebody's banned, that doesn't somehow make it respectable or cool to randomly insult them. Now that I look more carefully, here's a sampling of "support" comments to Guy's opinion: "designed to up the drama", "Classic use of dispute resolution to harass a user", "sorry to see that attempts to bait Mongo continue". It's all irrelevant, ad hominem crap, and it's by no means restricted to that "side", or to whichever individuals I just quoted. What have people got so against being constructive without attacking others or second-guessing others' motivations? Why is it mandatory to insult those with whom we disagree? Why can't content and policy disputes stay focused on content and policy, but instead have to be sullied with all kinds of unprofessional, unhelpful, drama-increasing shit-talk? Why aren't people happy unless they get to label each other as "bad-faith"? Why don't we act more like adults, and less like angry children? The point is the content, not the contributor. If each of us acts that way, then all of this stupid, stupid, stupid drama evaporates. Trolling is easy to deal with; you just do it professionally, and it's no more than a minor headache. Admin abuse is easy to deal with; you just do it professionally, and it's no more than a minor headache. Don't worry about stupid policy pages; we've got IAR. Don't ever edit-war anything, for any reason, ever. People are so convinced that they need these "rules" to "defend" themselves against each other... just behave, and you can deal with anything. Stoop to attacking each others' character, and the drama will follow you, all of your days. Will, I realize I'm replying to you, but please don't take the above as personally directed. Those who talk about each others' motivations know who they are. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. It's OK for folks to say that MONGO is uncivil, but it's a personal attack for other users to make similar remarks? The point of a user RfC is to comment on users. The point of such an RfC isn't to comment on content, it's to comment on contributors. Anyway, I don't see any of those comments as being notable personal attacks. Claiming that an RfC is "designed to up the drama" is not a personal attack by any definition of the term. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume the RfC wasn't "designed to up the drama." I assume it was designed in the spirit of dispute resolution. Whether it was a good idea is a separate question, which should be addressed, but claiming that it was intended as a trolling tactic is totally out of line. Any discussion becomes pointless once we start attacking each others' motivations. No productive communication happens beyond that point; it's like giving up. The point of a user RfC is to comment on a user's behavior; if we cross the line into talking about their motivations and purportedly bad intentions, then we've forsaken our posts as encyclopedists and stepped onto entirely different and indefensible ground as moral judges. There is simply no point at which we ever need to talk about each others' intentions or motivations. It's a bad idea, because it leads us away from solutions, and into murky, murky waters, where we get stuck, for months and months at a time. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When it is is without foundation it is. Dismissing good faith attempts at dispute resolution is extremely rude, uncivil and in my opinion an attack. Viridae Talk 07:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Failure to assume good faith is a violation of WP:AGF. But I don't see where attributing poor motivations to the creators of an RfC is a personal attack. Is accusing people of harassment a personal attack? Is accusing people of incivility a personal attack? Maybe we need to re-write NPA. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, eventually, I don't care which page is being "violated". Wikipedia is not best thought of as a statutory system. If you talk about someone's motivations in any way, you've changed the subject from an encyclopedic one about content to an unencyclopedic and personal one about things of which you have no knowledge, nor any business speculating. Good faith is all we have to work with here. If you stop assuming it, and let it be known that you think the other person is trolling or vandalizing, then you've just sabotaged the possibility of collaboration. There's a difference between accusing someone of incivility, and accusing them of bad faith. If I tell you that you've said something rude, we can talk about that, but I tell you're being rude on purpose because you're not here to build the encyclopedia, then there's nothing to discuss. I don't care whether you call that a personal attack or not, but respected Wikipedia administrators have got no business doing it. I consider it a personal attack because it's about the contributor, not about their contribution, and the WP:NPA nutshell summary says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Therefore, when someone comments on the contributor, I consider it a personal attack. Whatever it is, we need to stop doing it, even when we're dealing with people whose motivations we suspect. Allowing ourselves to include below-the-belt shots about people's motives is a bad, bad habit that we as a community should kick to the curb with all haste. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it possible to hold an RfC/U without commenting on contributors? When I see folks using article talk pages to talk about each other I tell them to go use an appropriate forum, such as AN/I, RfC/U, or RfAr. This is one of the few places where commenting on contributors is sanctioned. If we want to start an RfC/U on a user who is showing bad faith, it is logical and necessary to provide evidence of their bad faith. You are right that such discssions are often unhelpful in the long run, and there is currently a discussion about deleting/archiving the RfC/U process just because they seem to cause more harm than good. I suppose this one may be an example. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (2nd nomination). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's easy: you talk about their conduct, and not about the motivations that you imagine might underlie that conduct. Behavior that needs to change needs to change, no matter how good or bad the person's intentions are. People don't show bad faith; they show bad conduct. When we talk about the intentions, we're selling out the possibility of a useful RfC, in favor of our desire to judge others. That's not okay. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There seem to be many charges of bad faith in this RfC, such as this one:
 * "MONGO's usual supporters (and BADSITES advocates) are all signed up under "enough already", a signal act of bad faith...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."
 * So again we have an RfC participant lumping folks together into an affiliation, and then judging their bad intent, all while complaining about uneven application of the rules on civility.
 * No one participating in this RfC really seems to think it will change anything, so I tend to agree that RfC/Us have outlived whatever usefulness they once had. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the accusations of bad faith are rampant on both sides. Neither side's errors justifies the other's. I'm hoping that if anything useful comes of the RfC it will be that our community finally gets sick of this shit, and starts taking seriously the idea that we can avoid a lot of trouble by behaving more professionally. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Harassment" of MONGO
MONGO may well feel harassed by people commenting on his incivility. But that is unquestionably NOT grounds to say "no, you're not allowed to question his incivility!" If people are immune from criticism when they yell loudly enough about harassment, there is a big problem. -Amarkov moo! 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't see MONGO's comment on this RFC. Did he comment?  --DHeyward (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but the basis of what everyone else has said seems to be "stop harassing MONGO!" -Amarkov moo! 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * so your whole point of "people are immune from criticism when they yell loudly enough about harassment" isn't about the person you claim is immune or about them yelling? --DHeyward (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Since you are not ignorant of this situation, the most charitable assumption I can make is that you're deliberately being annoying. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THE ISSUE HAS COME UP. -Amarkov moo! 06:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, that was my exact sentiment when I first saw this RFC. It seems I am not without company.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A
Guy asks:

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)


 * First off-- you're echoing MONGO's personal attacks against me-- even though I repeatedly have asked, nay, BEGGED for them to stop being repeated. Please, stop connecting me to that site or any of the attack sites. Seriously Guy-- one human being to another, please-- just stop.  As I express above, the rumor that I'm an ED agent got old a long, long, LONG time ago.   Stop implying it. PLEASE.  I don't know how to ask any nicer than this.   Nobody's ever presented serious evidence that I'm an ED editor or an ED fan, because of course, there is no such evidence, because I'm not an ED editor.  So stop...  Please Guy-- just stop, okay?   I know it's a very effective tactic, it makes everyone all mad at me and want to defend MONGO-- but it's just plain not true, and it's just plain not fair.


 * I'm trying to get this false rumor killed. Could that death PLEASE start with you, Guy?  Could you please make a pledge-- not to the world or anything, just silently to yourself, that you'll be the first to stop implying I support ED, edit ED, or am affiliated with ED.  No tactics, no scheme, just you and me-- two guys who devote a lot of their time to creating the same beautiful encyclopedia-- please stop.  Everyone who repeats a rumor, or implies a rumor, makes it stronger.


 * Please-- you're still an admin on this site, I'm still an editor coming to you, asking for your help to stop people from personally attacking me and implying something about me that just plain ain't true. I know we are on the opposite side of the badsite policy dispute, but I'm still an editor, you're still an admin, and I'm asking you as nicely as I can for your help.  I need your help, Guy.  I want this rumor to stop.  Will you help me get it stopped, Guy?


 * Now, maybe somebody will say I have no right to ask that false rumors not be spread about me. Maybe somebody will argue I gave up that right when I opposed BADSITES.  I hope nobody will say that, but it's a point-- if I'd fight for Wikipedia to link to sites that spread false rumors about other people, maybe I deserve to have false rumors spread about me, just so I can see what it feels like.  I don't think that's fair, I don't think that's right but I understand some people might feel that way.


 * As to your question-- why would I argue that "In the unlikely event ED became notable, I hope we'd have an article on it??". The answer is in the essay I wrote User:Alecmconroy/AGF and BADSITES.   I know you've heard my spiel, so I won't repeat the whole thing.   I want Wikipedia to be a truly neutral  encyclopedia on EVERYTHING.  I don't want us to be the encyclopedia of Damnatio memoriae.  And I want people to KNOW we're not an encyclopedia of Damnatio memoriae-- I want people to know, without a doubt, we don't have an ED article because ED is a stupid, nonnotable little website nobody cares about-- NOT because ED made us mad.


 * I know some people disagree about the BADSITES issue. That's 100%  okay.  It's a valid debate.  I will never ever ever try to have someone blocked just for supporting BADSITES.


 * But when MONGO edit wars his personal opinion into a policy page without caring whether it has consensus 19 times? When MONGO keeps implying I'm connected to ED, no matter how many times I ask people to stop implying it?


 * What else can I possibly do, but file an RFC???


 * I guess I could quit wikipedia of course. Stop editing, get the account deleted, ask that my name be blanked from the talk pages?   Or I could disavow my beliefs--  start arguing in favor of BADSITES in the hope that if I argue hard enough, MONGO might take pity on me and finally leave me alone.  But those answers would really just be just running away, wouldn't they?  And I would be leaving the NEXT person MONGO decides to tear into to fend for themselves because I was just too cowardly to take the steps necessary to get him to stop.  And that doesn't seem like the right thing to do either.   --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am not echoing personal attacks against you. I am investigating a dispute, and finding that your involvement with MONGO and the ED controversy goes back much further than this RfC suggests.  In fact, I have yet to find anyone certifying this RfC who has actually made any realistic attempt to resolve the supposed dispute, pretty much all of it is the same people who have been trying to get MONGO banned since forever having yet another go-round at it.  What you cna do is try discussion and compromise instead of reverting, something that is very close to completely absent from the anti-BADSITES side of the debate.  This was a very foolish RfC and looks as if it was motivated by a long-standing grudge.  Even if it wasn't, and I will have to take your word on that, it certainly looks like it, and for that reason it is futile. Advocating an article on ED given your own history of dispute with MONGO over that is simply crass. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I'm glad I asked anyway. Maybe that could have been the solution.
 * I don't know why you insist that there's some nefarious explanation to my motives. Is it really so inconceivable that somebody could really have a philosophical objection to BADSITES?  Is the only possible explanation that I'm some ED sleeper agent part of an extended campaign of harassment??  Isn't it just possible that if at least half the project and a majority of the ARBCOM objected to BADSITES, maybe, just maybe, BADSITES failure isn't the result of any bad-faith whatsover-- no ED conspiracy, no trolls-- but just good editors and arbiters who really think it's a bad idea? --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you paused to consider asking yourself that exact same question? Why do you insist that there is some nefarious explanation for MONGO's motives?  What is wrong with the obvious: that having been subject to vicious attacks on external websites, and having seen two separate arbitration cases ruling that external attacks are unacceptable, he wants to ensure that policy accurately reflects that in a way which is not ambiguous?  The arguments against his proposal all look to me to be straw men: this is like BADSITES and BADSITES is wrong because..." - there doesn't seem to be any obvious attempt to reach a compromise. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you paused to consider asking yourself that exact same question? Why do you insist that there is some nefarious explanation for MONGO's motives?  What is wrong with the obvious: that having been subject to vicious attacks on external websites, and having seen two separate arbitration cases ruling that external attacks are unacceptable, he wants to ensure that policy accurately reflects that in a way which is not ambiguous?  The arguments against his proposal all look to me to be straw men: this is like BADSITES and BADSITES is wrong because..." - there doesn't seem to be any obvious attempt to reach a compromise. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The arguments, pro- and con- against Mongo proposals are irrelevant. I have NO objection to ANYONE politely making a good-faith proposal on the talk page.  And I don't insist Mongo's motives are nefarious-- his motives are actually very pure:  a desire to protect the people he cares about.  Neither MONGOs motives nor his philosophical views (re: BADSITES) are at issue here.
 * Mongo's problem is that he won't stop inserting his own opinion into policies pages-- circumventing the correct process for policy formation.  He's done it 19 times.   To be generious, I'll say he was bold once, and violated policy 18 times.   He makes personal attacks  for which he never apologizes, and he has show no inclination whatsoever to stop.
 * These are problems. All the attacking me, for taking the time to try to solve these problems,  will not suddently mean they are not problems.  MONGO has an behavior problem.  You know it, I know it, and Arbcom knows it.  The only person who doesn't know it is MONGO, and if nobody can get through to him, he'll just keep it up, until one day he gonna winds up banned.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm... I've been following things, and I don't recall seeing Alec suggest that MONGO has a hidden agenda. This seems to be good evidence that Alec's issue has been with Mongo's methods, not his motives. Could you point out some evidence for your claim, or are we supposed to accept this based only on your word? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusion about what is going on
If this is MONGO's block log then since June 2005, MONGO's block record is the following,
 * June 8, 2005 - blocked for 24 hours
 * June 25, 2005 - blocked for 15 minutes
 * September 24, 2006 - blocked for 12 hours
 * September 24, 2006 - unblocked an hour later
 * September 27, 2006 - blocked for 1 second
 * February 21, 2007 - blocked for 24 hours
 * Febrary 21, 2007 - unblocked 20 minutes later
 * October 17, 2007 - blocked for 72 hours
 * October 17, 2007 - unblocked 1/2 hour later

Therefore, since June 2005, MONGO has been blocked (roughly) for a total of 26 hours, 25 minutes and 1 second. How can it be said that all remedies have been tried except a ban? Am I misunderstanding this? Mattisse 15:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The length of the blocks does seem like a token effort only.Merkinsmum (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I for one am not saying an outright ban is the only solution-- if anyone can get him to stop, I'll be happy.  If he can be reformed rather than banned outright, that's far preferable to him getting banned entire.  That said-- MONGO's had a warning from arbcom and a desysopping from arbom-- you'd think if he was going to change his ways,  he'd have changed his ways by now.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a bit like saying if you were going to stoip using tones of sweet reason to engage in egregious trolling then you would have done so by now - it's statement which incorporates a value judgement, i.e. begging the question. MONGO's content edits are sound, and the blocks were reversed essentially because they were not warranted.  Have you actually tried dialogue with MONGO instead of yelling past each other?  It doesn't look like it to me. MONGO has had an experience you have not - being viciously attacked by an external website - and you do not seem to be even trying to understand what that feels like and how we should ensure that it does not happen to others. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Guy. I asked you as nicely as I know how to stop attacking me, and five seconds later I'm an egregious troll.  Thanks-- That's just Peachy.
 * MONGO's policy edits are indefensible-- or at least, I don't see anyone here defending them. The personal attacks against me are similarly indefensible--  MONGO has acted like NPA doesn't apply to him, so long as he's discussing BADSITES.  He's been warned for it.  He's been desysopped for it.  And if he never stops, it's only a matter of time before he gets banned for it.


 * Oh, and I may not have been through anything compared to lies that were spread about MONGO, but when half the project is somehow convinced I'm an ED conspirator, I'm definitely getting a taste of the experience, thank you. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you need to go back and read it again. It is perfectly possible to engage in trolling without being a troll. Perfectly reasonable people can engage in trolling, for any one of a number of reasons.  But even that is beside the point: your questions, in every case, are framed based on the assumption that MONGO is the problem.  He isn't.  Both sides are the problem, but actually MONGO has unbent more than, say, Dan Tobias, who retains a hard-line stance against removal of any links.  This is not because Dan is evil, it is because, as he has made clear, he does not see why being attacked by a website is a big deal.  I don't think any of the parties here are evil, though most of the pile-ons who have come to rehash their long-standing grudges with MONGO are not far off  by now.  What needs to happen is you need to try to see it from MONGO's perspective, as a person who was viciously attacked by a website whose administrators were actively editing Wikipedia, baiting him, linking the site all over the place.  As far as MONGO is concerned, lobbying (or appearing to lobby) for an article on a website, still, a year after you were arguing with him about it, is trolling.  You know that bringing up ED will get a bad reaction from MONGO.  The argument at WT:NPA should not be happening.  Dan Tobias tells me he is of the view that links to offsite attacks are not acceptable, so I don't understand why he's arguing that we can't say that in the policy.  The existing policy and arbitration cases are being misunderstood, so the policy needs clarifying.  Rather than simply opposing what it suggested, people need to look for points of agreement. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They may well be other problems besides MONGO.  I freely admit that-- if there are other problems, they need to be dealt with.  If I really am the person people have accused me of being,                          then lump me right in there.  Nor do I think solving MONGO's problems will magically resolve the BADSITES debate at all-- but then, the badsites debate isnt' a problem-- it's a legitimate dispute.


 * There may be lots of people, on boths side of the issue, who have problems--- but MONGO clearly has a problem. His problem is causing the most disruption, his problem is, in my mind, the most serious of the behavior problems.  Nobody offered any substantive defense for MONGO's actions besides attacking others.   MONGO as a well-documented history of EXACTLY this sort of behavior problems.  Mongo has gotten PLENTY of warnings over the last two years.  Mongo's problems need to be address.


 * Its true that MONGO's tactics have been shared by others. For my own part, I'm willing to hope, in the spirit of AGF, that if MONGO stops being utterly out of control, perhaps any ancillary behavior problems will resolve themselves naturally, without us having to take any further actions --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) - Having read the reams on this matter, I'd have to say Guy, that you are behaving like the perfectly reasonable person you describe above. Perhaps rather than long posts, and disruptive discussions, a short note to Alec along the lines of 'MONGO must remain civil' would go a long way. Re : "The argument at WT:NPA should not be happening" I feel fairly certain that certifiers of this RfC wholly agree. Privatemusings (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * GUy you claim that Dan "does not see why being attacked by a website is a big deal". Are you going to source that accusation? I certainly don't see anything like that. Viridae Talk 21:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Denying what is obvious doesn't help much. Nabble.com has a copy of one such message to which Guy alludes.  --Iamunknown 21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I re-read your post, I don't really think that my stricken comment is appropriate. Thus, striking.  --Iamunknown 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "You know that bringing up ED will get a bad reaction from MONGO." -- JzG.
 * So, unless I am missing something nobody brought up ED to MONGO. The NPA policy was unprotected.  MONGO added new text without any prior discussion.  Revert war ensued.  Policy was re-protected.  What, exactly, does this have to do with ED? And who brought up ED to MONGO? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * A thread on the mailing list unrelated to the current discussion and not involving MONGO. Viridae Talk 02:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be corrective in nature, not punitive. If MONGO has been blocked 10 times but his behavior hasn't changed, then either a different type of corrective action is in order, or else we're past trying to correct the problem. Cla68 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cla68, MONGO has not been blocked 10 times. (See above). This what I do not understand. Since June 2005, MONGO has been blocked 4 times. Not counting the first block of 24 hours in June 2005, MONGO has been blocked for a total of less than two hours. A total of two hours over two years, how is that corrective? Mattisse 14:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * June 8, 2005 - blocked for 24 hours
 * June 25, 2005 - blocked for 15 minutes
 * September 24, 2006 - blocked for 12 hours- unblocked an hour later
 * September 27, 2006 - blocked for 1 second
 * February 21, 2007 - blocked for 24 hours - unblocked 20 minutes later
 * October 17, 2007 - blocked for 72 hours - unblocked 1/2 hour later
 * In fact, if you discount the One Second block (the purpose of which I do not understand) he has only been blocked 3 times in over two years for a total of (roughly) two hours. To me, that is a very minimal block record.  Mattisse  14:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that completely ignores the context. Last time he was blocked, it was made quite clear that any block of him will be very soon overturned as "unlikely to help". We can't TRY blocking him for longer, because nobody will let us. -Amarkov moo! 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see where the other bit of thread I'm replying to is lol.:) Someone said 'mongo's content edit's are sound', but that is not what we're discussing, that's great but if he's attacking other editors and accusing a lot of people whose content, or views on policies he disagrees with of being involved with ED when some of them aren't, or verbally attacking editor's in other ways, that's still not on.Merkinsmum (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RFAR
Has been filed. Viridae Talk 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)