Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alecmconroy (talk | contribs) at 07:39, 16 November 2007 (→Users certifying the basis for this dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:39, 16 November 2007 by Alecmconroy (talk | contribs) (→Users certifying the basis for this dispute)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute

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

Desired outcome

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

Description

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

December Arbcom Case

  • Mongo has a long history of disruptive behavior. A December 2006 Arbcom case was filed against MONGO, with much evidence presented accusing Mongo of incivility and personal attacks.
  • Arbcom held that Mongo has a "habitual over-reaction" in dealing with the subject of Attack Sites: "In many instances he has reacted inappropriately to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner". (Emphasis mine)
  • Mongo has a long past history of personal attacks. To quote a few of the the most relevant instances from his 2006 case, just to establish that a longstanding pattern:--
  • Calls Miltopia a "moronic troll".
  • Says Gentgee is an "admin that supports harassment"
  • Says Luna Santin is an "admin that supports harassment.
  • As a result of that Arbcom case, Mongo was desysopped.

Continued personal attacks

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

  • A month ago, MONGO was warned by an admin and then briefly blocked for engaging in personal attacks made at WT:NPA.
  • Today, Mongo accused DanT of 'participating in a website that stalks people'. I feel this is a textbook example of a Personal Attack-- "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." More seriously, MONGO's comment, although not explicitly stating this, strongly implies that DanT has been involved in criminal stalking-- an EXTREMELY serious charge.
  • Today, MONGO accused me (Alecmconroy) of being an advocate for the recreation of a WP article Encyclopedia Dramatica-- another instance of MONGO's habit of "commenting on the contributor, not on the content". It's also particularly frustrating, since although MONGO was correct that I was involved the discussion, he neglected to mention that I had actually sided AGAINST the recreation.
  • His edit summaries at NPA have frequently "commented on the contributor, rather than the content".
  • "rv another ED contributor..."
  • "revert, known ED contributor"
  • "the only dispute is by those who contribute to WR."
  • "not much to dispute, unless your an ED or WR partisan"
  • Mongo attacked admin GTBacchus, saying "GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows. You folks really should get busy writing an encyclopedia instead of being angry that this policy was protected on the "wrong version"...seriously, 2 million articles await you." (emphasis mine)

Continued disruptive editing

  • Three weeks ago, Mongo was again reported to ANI for disruptive edit warring-- making ten reverts over the span of a few days-- potentially "gaming 3RR".
  • In the ANI discussion that followed, Mongo promised to abide by a 1RR on WP:NPA.
  • Mongo has AGAIN come to NPA and repeatedly reinserted text against consensus. AGAIN the page has been protected and disrupted. In doing so, MONGO has either outright broken or at least gamed his earlier pledge to abide by 1RR.
  • Despite widespread opposition and lack of any consensus, MONGO has reinserted Attack-Site-related text into WP:NPA a total of nineteen times:

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Alecmconroy 07:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}


Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.