Misplaced Pages

View

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

Users who endorse this view:

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

Involved View

A few points...

• MILTOPIA may have been a moronic troll in the views of some but by MONGO calling him that

1. Did not assume good faith as he was making valid arguments
2. Attacked the editor, not the content
3. Did not do anything to advance the issue or make headway in what was and now is again a contentious issue.

• Alecmconroy is an editor in good standing here on the opposite side of the debate with MONGO. Based on the WikiEN-l postings, he is advocating an ED article for the right reasons not to harass MONGO. We are here to build an encyclopedia based on using reliable sources that verify notable content that meets our guidelines. That is what he wants. He acknowledges that it does not meet our current standards and will not add it. As an uninvolved party to that debate, it is blindingly obvious to me and any other reasonable editor reading those postings.

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Involved View

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

1. *Dan T.* 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
2. I have repeatedly stated this and reiterate my support of this. spryde | talk 14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
3. The rules must be the same for everyone and enforced fairly. 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
4. —Random832 16:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
5. ---- John (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Viridae 03:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Joe (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Travb (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Catchpole (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
11. GRBerry (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Ombudsman (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

View of Crockspot

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

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

Enough already

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

In support:

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

Dissenting view

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

Somewhat involved view from User:Mangoe

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Outside View by Sxeptomaniac

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

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Outside view by Cla68

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Outside view by Amarkov

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Outside view by Merkinsmum

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -Merkinsmum (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Mattisse 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dissenting view

1. If Conroy is not a fan of ED and does not want to be in any way associated with it, please explain why a year after this he is still raising the issue on the mailing list. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

See my answer to your question on talk. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Travb

I recently found an incredible graph by Gmaxwell‎, User:Gmaxwell/adminship map. Some of strongest supporters of Mongo here:

1. User:Jersey_Devil,
2. User:Tom_harrison #View,
3. User:Rogerd,
4. User:Crockspot

...were all nominated for admin by MONGO. Travb (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

No, a pattern of group behavior on the editing of several articles. I would give examples, but since this is supposed to be about Mongo I will stop myself here.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Mattisse

There is something wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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

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.