Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MONGO 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can we try not to make personal attacks during discussions of NPA? 

message: 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. ViridaeTalk 14:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors."  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it may, but does that make personal attacks productive or helpful? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Let me stress this

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Jehochman, see here for the adage. spryde | talk 14:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Definition of Insanity

message: 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)
replies: text: I see. And which category do you fall into? ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors."  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrutinize to your heart's content comrades.  Please feel free to start at my user page. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The double standard is alive and well 

message: 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)
replies: text: I didn't see MONGO's comment on this RFC.  Did he comment?  --DHeyward (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but the basis of what everyone else has said seems to be "stop harassing MONGO!" -Amarkov moo! 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Harassment" of MONGO 

message: Has been filed. ViridaeTalk 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFAR