Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:28, 17 November 2007

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 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 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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MONGO 3#Enough already 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 Misplaced Pages's editors. Argyriou (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the claims against MONGO is that he has "use 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 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)

(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)

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 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 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What personal attacks are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 17 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)