Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Statement by David D.

This comment from MONGO in the Kelly Martin RfC did appear out of the blue. I participated on that talk page and it did seem unwarranted at the time. I have had no interaction with rootology, although I did support the deletion of the Encyclopedia damatica and from this perspective I would say I am neutral. I did noticed rootology was very keen to keep it alive and from memory, I would say it bordered on pestering. Nevertheless MONGO's accusations may well need to be tempered. David D. (Talk) 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Cyde Weys

Rootology and Badlydrawnjeff are members of Encyclopedia damatica first, members of Wikipedia second. It is thus understandable where all of the wikidamatica around here is coming from. --Cyde Weys 00:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by TheronJ

I'm not sure if this is a good test case or not, but any additional guidance ArbCom can offer on what constitutes "wikistalking" will probably be helpful. TheronJ 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved party Anomo

Encyclopedia damatica is basically a site where most people there are a hivemind. To me it is a cult. They all appear to act alike and think alike over there.

Wikistalking I believe is only against the rules if done for harassment and wikistalking is very common on wikipedia where about everyone does this. Anomo 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved party Grafikm_fr

I'm a complete outsider to this thing, but saw a lot of it on WP:AN (or was it WP:ANI?). I stronly urge our dear arbitrators to accept the case, because increased stalking and tendentious editing from some editors that come here to wage edit wars and not writing an encyclopedia deserve a reponse from the ArbCom. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Tom Harrison

It seems implausible that Rootology's interest in national parks and 9/11 conspiracy theories is independent of Mongo's work in those areas, and Rootology's interest in ED. This request for arbitration looks like another exercise in time-wasting drama. Tom Harrison Talk 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Kelly Martin

I have long had concerns about MONGO; my impression is that while he's generally a good admin he has a tendency to lose perspective from time to time and become overly emotionally involved. Rootology has twigged my trouble meter almost from the time I first encountered him. I think that Wikipedia would benefit from a thorough examination of the conduct of at least these two editors, and possibly others involved in this case, and therefore encourage the Committee to accept this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Prasi90

To begin with, let me clarify that I am not in any way directly involved with the matter(s) that have led to this request for arbitration being filed. I have, however, been involved with MONGO in several disputes, arising mainly out of my actions here. There ensued a long series of blocks and unblocks (most of them imposed on me by MONGO), after which I eventually changed my trollish ways (and I admit here with due remorse that some of my actions were intolerably inconsiderate) and became, if not the most valuable editor on Wikipedia, atleast a policy-abiding editor. The credit for this change in me goes to those who mentored me in those troubled times-Hamster Sandwich and Fred Bauder among many others, including (in a sense) MONGO himself. It is for due to the fact that I have had a rather long association with MONGO that I believe that my views about this Administrator might be of some use to those hearing this case. In my dealings with him, I found that he was (perhaps) not as neutral as an Administrator should be and often lets his point-of-view interfere in his actions as an Administrator. He often accused me of being an "anti-American bigot" and repeatedly threatened me with "month long blocks" for violating policy by being a "bigot". He also seemed to have (in the words of a participant in this case) certain "cronies" who aided him in his activities. I personally found him to be overly harsh with me in his Administrative activities, possibly as a result of my "anti-American bigotry". I also found/find his habit of protecting the talk-pages of users he blocks rather disturbing. I am not sure if the rather confrontational attitude MONGO assumes is becoming of an Administrator like him, and, as an editor who has been on the wrong side of his blocks on several occassions, I must state that the way he carried out his Administrative actions, described by one user as "power-trips", was more instrumental in adding fuel to the fire (of an already angry, blocked user) rather than reforming the said user. The fact that I changed my ways within a few weeks under the influence of other Administrators is testament to this fact. In MONGO's defence however, he is a valuable contributor to this website and himself lifted the indefinite block he had placed on me after I proved to him my good intentions, which is perhaps an (albeit somewhat isolated) instance of him being benevolent in his dealings with problem users. I am of the view that for MONGO to be relieved of his Administrative access for some period of time would allow him to get a more balanced perspective of his actions here and would be in his best interests as well as those of Wikipedia. Prasi90 13:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to MONGO, let me clarify to all interested parties that to judge this Administrator's behaviour based solely on his conduct towards me would not be fair since he has (I admit) had to put up with a lot of trolling from me during my "darkest hours" here. Going by that yardstick, I would rate his interactions with me as "good" and would (in all fairness) not be in favour of having MONGO de-sysoped but would prefer if he were to become just a little more polite from now onwards. Prasi90 07:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Prasi90's comments

Arbitrators should be examine the block log and the Rfc that was filed about Prasi90's behavior that led to the long term blocks. Indeed, I did unblock Prasi90 after he promised to behave himself, and I see that since he was unblocked by me, he has indeed edited constructively.--MONGO 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the edits for Prasi90, who was also identified as User:202.177.246.3 (block log) based on this edit and other similar edits, he has done one minor vandalism since being unblocked.

Prasi90 was blocked multiple times, by multiple admins for edits such as the following (as also shown on the Rfc): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5],[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]--MONGO 09:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That vandalism was not done by me, it was perhaps someone else using the same IP who was responsible for it-a large number of IPs from the same range as mine seem to be editting that page. In any case, the type of vandalism (nonsense editting) is not characteristic of my past (problematic) history-which mostly involved trolling and more pointed vandalism than the kind seem on the Halloween page. In any case, I want to put my past history behind me and move on. My opinion is that though MONGO is a very valuable contributor and one of the more neutral/fair Administrators, he should make a slight change in his attitude toward his fellow users. Prasi90 06:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly concede that your IP has probably changed since we last had communication.--MONGO 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SoftPale (talk • contribs)

SoftPale (talk • contribs) has one edit...[13] [14]. I blocked this person when they were using their other account, namely SoftPaleColors (talk • contribs) after they showed up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite and posted this personal attack...having not made a single edit in the six months prior to that edit. This editor only had 15 edits total prior to the posting at that Rfc and now posting as SoftPale (talk • contribs) has stated, " I also from emailing the arbitrators, that they are completely biased in favor of administrators. Only one even answered and that person was fully biased against me because I am a lurker here, refusing to put my statement here." which I take to mean that they haven't been unblocked after emailing arbcom [15]. Please remove their comments from my arbcom until someone from the arbitration committee unblocks them. Additionally, as a indefinitely banned editor, I believe even emails from User:Blu Aardvark are not permitted since he is no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia.--MONGO 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


I did not anticipate that when I opened this case for Tony, who is recused, that my inbox would become an Arbcom branch office. I don't mind, but I hope you all will be forgiving of any mistakes I might make.
Regarding SoftPaleColors, I expect he has the right to add himself as a party if he feels his block was injust. I'm sure the arbitrators will grasp the subtext as well as the text of his statement; I would have suggested to him that evidence would be more persuasive than a statement deprecating the arbitration process. You could certainly make a rebuttal in your evidence section to provide the context to why he was blocked. After reflection I have changed my mind. SoftPale's block is unrelated to Encyclopedia damatica and should be reviewed separately. I will discuss this with him on his talk page.
Regarding Blu Aardvark, he e-mailed me the statement I posted, correctly noting that if he posted it himself he would be immediately blocked. I am aware of the general prohibition against banned users having any say at all on Wikipedia, however, I am not comfortable serving as a gatekeeper deciding what evidence the committee should or should not see. Obviously the arbitration committee is well aware of Blu Aardvark, and if someone from the committee removes his statement (or if they direct me to do it) I will take that as the final word on the matter. I hope this is satisfactory. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by SoftPaleColors

Because Mongo's block of SoftPaleColors was not related to the Encyclopedia damatica fracas that spawned this case, I have moved his statement here to the talk page. SoftPaleColors is not a party to the present dispute, and this case is not an excuse for a MONGO pile-on. SoftPale's concerns can be better addressed elsewhere. If the parties feel I have erred here, I stand ready to be corrected. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

MONGO has used wikistalking on me (and looking at his block log, many many victims) to ban them forever. I was banned for eternity 28 days ago by MONGO and still I received no warning. His entire false reasoning for the block was done by stalking me via my contributions. He banned me because I am a lurker. The real reason to me is that User:Hipocrite is MONGO's sockpuppet. User Hipocrite also wikistalks.

Furthermore, I see that MONGO has a tendency to edit articles that he has a personal involvement in. The whole encyclopedia damatica issue, while the article needed to have personal attacks removed and I feel the article (and website) should have not been created in the first place, he should have been something he turned it over to another administrator.

During his whole time being an administrator, he has pushed his personal feelings onto conspiracy articles. He states here that he works for Homeland Security and he states his Point of View. I feel that the administrative tools serve only harm in his hands and he should reliquish them. I also from emailing the arbitrators, that they are completely biased in favor of administrators. Only one even answered and that person was fully biased against me because I am a lurker here, refusing to put my statement here. Is there a rule requing that people have to edit wikipedia constantly or are forever banned? SoftPaleColors 18:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the Worst Sockpuppet Ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Mushroom

Unfortunately, that's simply not the case. The privateditor name WAS made by me, long ago, but I've never used it since. That image WAS captured by me, but obviously I had no intention of really obfuscating anything. The obvious editing connection between my other user and myself is ridiculously clear by the small number of edits it did. I was in a freenode IRC chat, and someone asked what all the nonsense was about that I was chatting with, and I sent them the image privately when they asked what all this was about. It apparently got back to the ED people, and they posted it with an old username of mine, but I have no control over that. Why would I be uploading things that would point a clear light at me if I were doing things like that, AND bring about this Arbitration if that were the case? That's just ridiculous. rootology (T) 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Let me recap this:
  • You took a screenshot of a page you never edited, containing personal information about MONGO.
  • You took it from an account that you used for just three (3) hours.
  • You talked to someone on IRC and sent him that same screenshot to explain "what all the nonsense was about" (?).
  • That screenshot mysteriously found its way to User:Fuckface at Encyclopedia damatica.
  • Fuckface posted that screenshot to ED to harass MONGO.
  • You never edited Encyclopedia damatica and you have nothing to do with it.
  • The fact that you're so interested in ED is just a coincidence.
  • The fact that you tried to prevent the deletion of the Encyclopedia damatica article is just a coincidence.
  • The fact that you requested the unblock of ED user Weevlos is just a coincidence.
  • The fact that you strived to keep links to ED in Wikipedia articles is just a coincidence.
I'm surprised you couldn't come up with a better excuse. Now, here's my theory:
Mushroom (Talk) 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Georgewilliamherbert

[edit] General

There are extremely good reasons why Wikipedia admins should distance themselves admin-powers-wise from events in Wikipedia which they are also participating as an individual editor. These can include:

  1. Appearance of conflict of interest / impropriety
  2. Actual conflict of interest / impropriety
  3. Judgement affected by personal involvement
  4. Perception of abuse of power by other participants
  5. Loss of respect for Wikipedia and its admins by participants and onlookers
  6. Escalating rather than acting to smooth disagreements

Note that several of these are completely independent of the admin's intent, state of mind, and whether their actions are justifyable and defensible from a completely neutral and uninvolved viewpoint.

Even in the best of circumstances, where an admin's actions are clearly within policy and not motivated in any way by revenge or abusive tendencies, the actions present challenges such as the appearance of conflict of interest, perception by blockees that they are being unfairly picked on by someone with superior administrative rights, and that such actions have a much stronger tendency to escalate situations than equivalent actions by uninvolved admins.

Wikipedia admins acting as a body have been slipping clearly towards allowing and even encouraging admins to get more involved administratively in incidents which begin with personal involvement. For all the reasons above, this is a terrible trend. It is in the long term extremely corrosive to admin/editor relations.

It is also completely unnecessary. Every time I have seen an admin post a request for uninvolved admin review on ANI, there has been a prompt and proper enforcement response by another admin. It takes no more time for the original admin to do an ANI posting than it does to institute a properly documented block directly (though admittedly, the uninvolved admin does spend time they would not otherwise have to). Every time an admin takes that step back, the odds that the dispute will go away or be reduced in the future increase significantly.

There seems to be a feeling among many administrators that if they do not personally take these actions in incidents where they are personally involved, great wrongs will go unrighted. This idea is wrong, as above, and dangerous, as further above. Other admins will get involved and deal with problems, if notified. Uninvolved parties handling it does reduce the rate of recidivism and feelings and claims of admin abuse.

It is commonly said by admins that do these blocks that other admins can review their actions and overturn them. That response completely misses the point. The damage to Wikipedia is almost entirely not in the particular block of a particular user - it's in the secondary effects, and particularly the resulting dispute escalations due to perceptions of abuse. Once the involved admin blocks, even if it's overturned five minutes later, the damage is already done.

The practice of admins blocking their own disputants is bad for Wikipedia. Arbcom should acknowledge this and work to move things in the other direction.

[edit] Specific

Let me preface the specifics here with a note that despite several past disagreements with MONGO, he is clearly a positive contributor to the project, a positive administrator on the whole, and the notion of desysopping him is ludicrous on the face of it.

With that said;

In my opinion, MONGO has specifically caused several of the general points I make above during his ongoing engagements with editors somehow associated with Encyclopedia damatica. Many people have complained that it looks like he's abusing his powers with these editors. Those editors he's blocked have complained about him abusing them. using administrative powers.

The pattern of his interaction with those admins has also, in my opinion, clearly and blatantly escalated the conflicts on several occations, extended disagreements, escalated situations from impolite disagreements into a blockable offense. None of those would have happened had he not been an administrator, or had another administrator who was not involved been the person who reviewed conduct and imposed blocks.

He also has at times clearly been extremely angry or agitated about events and displayed it inappropriately. [16]

We would not be here with any sort of legitimate policy or behavior questions on either side had at any point in the last couple of months, any administrator who MONGO respects stepped up and said "Leave these guys to me. Point it out to me if you spot something, but let me take care of it for you. Take a breather. You don't personally have to fix this problem."

The ongoing nature of these incidents is the proof of the importance and necessity of the general guideline of administrators avoiding these situations. MONGO has, in defending himself, worsened the situation. Over and over again.

[edit] Provocations

Clearly, the ED events have specifically provoked and attacked MONGO. The apparent deeper involvement of some of the other participants of this RfAr in those events is certainly suspicious. The possibility that anyone who's been involved with ED is now a long term troll problem for Wikipedia looms over all of this. The basic truth of this problem has led me to be very cautious in criticising MONGO since the ED incidents started, and in particular avoiding the RFC which was filed. While there are legitimate questions about his actions, there are much clearer provocations and abuses against him, which are not due any benefit of the doubt as to good faith. I do not assume that the current complaintants were the perpetrators of those abuses, but some apparent linkages are very worrysome.

[edit] Nonfeasance

This is a terrible terrible concept. Holding anyone responsible for the unprovoked or uninvolved actions of a third party is reprehehsible. In my opinion, that MONGO has even brought it up as a proposal is an indication of the level of anger and agitation that he currently has regarding this series of incidents and his current lack of perspective on the subject matter.

This concept must be squashed deader than a fossilized bug. I urge Arbcom to take up this specific policy point and soundly reject it as WP policy.

[edit] What to do

Perhaps -

  • Ask MONGO politely but firmly to stand aside and let others deal with it?
  • Locate an abuse-responder administrator who hasn't otherwise been involved in ED and get them to take point on any ongoing issues?
  • Promulgate policy to push admins to notify and pass rather than personally block?
  • Get to the bottom of the claims of responsibility for various ED-site abuses and if WP editors were involved, Arbcom take them to the woodshed and banish them?

My two cents, plus significant inflation.

Georgewilliamherbert 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

George, I don't have to ask anyone to help me when I am being personally attacked. There was only one block I issued against any of the major names in this arbcom and that was to User:Karwynn for reposting personal attacks on an Rfc that was filed against User:Hipocrite. He was warned to not do this, and refused to remove them and was blocked. I not once blocked any of the other major names here in this proceeding (Rootology, Badlydrawnjeff or SchumuckyTheCat). The others blocked may have protested, but examine their edits, recognize they are meatpuppet or sockpuppet accounts and that they did indeed harass me...I don't need to get someone else to go and block them for me. You are confusing this with with a different set of parameters than is declared by WP:BLOCK, which is policy. Read the policy and start assuming good faith on my part.--MONGO 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You write:
I don't have to ask anyone to help me when I am being personally attacked
My point is: you should.
I do not question your good faith. Good faith is not enough. Admins who fight back willy-nilly exacerbate conflict, not resolve it.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Minor followup. Your edit summary on your last was "this guy has an axe to grind I do believe".
What on earth do you think my well-ground axe is in this matter?
Georgewilliamherbert 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That's nice.--MONGO 06:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved party Pavel Vozenilek

Encyclopedia damatica is notable enough to have its article here. Just because ED has satiric or outright vulgar attack pages on their website is not a reason to make nonstandard edits, to incite AfD or to close undecided Afd as Delete. Reaction of the drama lovers from ED is hardly suprise to me.

My recomendation is to undelete the ED article, ignore what ED puts on their front page (it is their website and their audience), dismiss this RfA for good, deescalate the conflict by sticking with standard ways of dealing with vandalism and forbid any wikistalking by involved parties.

Continuing with the dispute would only put more fuel into fire and will show how fragile to disruption Wikipedia is. Pavel Vozenilek 19:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you verify it's notability with reliable references, as the inability to do this was the reason it was deleted. ED posts and encourages their editors and other contributors to post personal information about Wikipedians, a serious privacy issue, and there are numerous articles there that attack wikipedians with libellous commentary. We also don't have articles on Wikipediareview or Daniel Brandts hivemind site for mostly the same reasons we don't have one now on ED. I am hoping we never have another article on this encyclopedia about ED, unless they become so notable we have to, which I don't imagine is likely to happen soon.--MONGO 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
We do, however, have an article, as an example, on WikiTruth, which is similar in regards to "articles...that attack wikipedians." The ED article did not actually violate any policies in its mere existence, but it doesn't look like this RfAr is going to touch that, and the cabal isn't going to allow further review, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
WikiTruth is verfiable.[17], [18]--MONGO 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
So you're okay with "attack sites" that meet your personal view on verifability? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not okay with them...and it isn't my personal view...it's policy. Millions of websites out there, and you're constant sniping about ED doesn't make me think you understand policy or how it works...this is a wiki...get it?--MONGO 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
So what's policy? Both are attack sites, both at least meet the letter of verifiability. I'm not looking to rerun the thing here, but it's not about me understanding policy, it's me not understanding where you're headed with this currently in your responses to this guy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to see either of you post evidence that ED meets verifiablity...see the policy.--MONGO 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Links had been supplied through the cource of the AfD that demonstrated that ED merited at the least stub status. rootology (T) 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, the community does not agree with that summation.--MONGO 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been my confusion from Day #1. Why the immense hate toward the ED site, and hyperaggressive drive from all to see it gone--even so far as "new" policy and precedent as would be established by Fred's suggestions--but nothing of the same toward Wikitruth et al? The authorization of automatic removal of "any and all" links to a "critical" site is insanely dangerous. It goes back to my example: If the New York Times on their site tomorrow TORCHES Wikipedia, The Foundation, Jimbo, etc., with some scathing expose, do we not link to that article? Or to nytimes.com any longer? Very dangerous ideas of control and censorship being espoused by Fred. rootology (T) 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the hyperagressive drive to see the article kept? Why to see it undeleted, now twice?--MONGO 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I gave up on keeping the article kept when DRV1 ended--look at my contribs. My point all along has been that the police stating of WP vs. any crticism is dangerous. Answer me this, MONGO, if you could: should WP link to anything that is critical of it? If a news outlet tomorrow does drop an expose bomb on WP that includes personal info, do we not talk about it on WP or link to it? rootology (T) 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
ED is established, has plenty of material and, at least before their current WP obsession, most of the content was quite good. That they post personal information on Wikipedians is their right and their problem.
Late reply on this, for what it worth: the WP content is like a fraction of their articles. I counted back during the AfD, it was like 18-20 out of 3,500. Hardly an obsession. rootology (T) 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This goes OT but I feel the same trend on ED as on Uncyclopedia. The more people come here the worse the content gets. It is probably law of Wikis. Pavel Vozenilek 19:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have watched a very similar conflict on Czech Wiki lasting for years, hence my comment. I do not think the ED war was needed - you could ignore the front page or sue them. Looking for justice or revenge via WP is futile and counterproductive, for what I see there and here. Pavel Vozenilek 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't nominate the article for deletion, nor did I close the deletion. I didn't close either of the two deletion reviews of this article either. I haven't Rfc'ed or arbcommed anyone on any of this, so the "problem" you have is apparently with the well reasoned closing of the deletion discussion and the deletion reviews, for which I had no part in. In case you don't know this...I did try to ignore it, I did try to avoid confrontation, but when these people came here to Wikipedia to harass me about their bullshit there, then they started the war. I have been trying to get it to end now for six weeks. I have an encyclopedia to write and these people are interfereing with my time to do so. If this sort of thing is going on in the czech wiki for years, then I fear what time has been wasted that could have been better spent.--MONGO 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this appears to be a red herring in this context. Given that it just failed its umpteenth DRV the only thing left for it would be an article specific RfAr or an appeal to Jimbo. I know there are people who disagree with the deletion, but this RfAr is not the time or place, in my opinion. Georgewilliamherbert 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Until their site gets more press, it's a non issue. Of course, when/if they do, I have to admit I will look forward on principle to it's immediate recreation should they gain notability/noteriety in the press to merit inclusion. rootology (T) 00:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very boring without drama. Just the facts Ma'am, don't need to look at your cunt. Fred Bauder 22:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been criticized for this remark, but taking a look at the featured image today http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Image:Woman_Fucking_Computer.JPG it is easy to see I was not far off the mark. Fred Bauder 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of a page which had been temporarily restored as evidence

I recently deleted a page thinking that it was a routine cleanup of an overlooked AFD/DRV decision. I have since learned that it was temporarily undeleted in order to support this case. Please accept my apologies if I inconvenienced anyone. Please let me know if the page is still needed and I will restore it. Rossami (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Crazyswordsman

I, too, am a bit late to this, but I should probably give my two cents. First, let me say that MONGO is a great contributor to Wikipedia and I acknowledge him for that. Unfortunately, he made some brash decisions in the past few months. MONGO is one of those cases where I would have to say that the ends don't justify his means. Let's start aways back during his first RfC regarding the WTC article. He blocked a user he was involved in a content dispute with. And when it was taken up at WP:AN and WP:RFC, he defended himself by saying that, paraphrased (I'll go look it up in a bit) "two other users agreed with the block so I did the right thing." It doesn't matter how many users agreed to the block. Admins should never block to gain an edge in a content dispute, even if the entire Wikipedia community agrees that the user be blocked. What he should have done was contact outside help, particularly from the Meditation Cabal or someone else. What I would have done if I were an admin and saw what was going on was block both parties for WP:3RR violations. He called the edits by his opponents vandalism, even though they were made in good faith. Honestly, I feel that this was a situation that got out of hand by both parties.

Then there's the whole ED thing. Personally, I think the article was right to be deleted (although I think a blurb in LiveJournal or something is acceptable because notability within a context has been established there). However, I should say that some events leading up to the AFD were uncalled for. ED did something that I don't condone (I don't condone anything they do, I'm an Uncyclopedian) in personally attacking MONGO and displaying it on the front page. However, MONGO responded the wrong way. Instead of taking it up with ED editors and ED admins, he completely messed with the ED article here, removing links to ED and other from the article, and getting many more people involved than needed to be. He even won an "ED sucks" barnstar for his messing with the article (it wasn't vandalism because his edits were made in good faith).

I agree with JZG that MONGO wasn't uncivil to the degree some people say he was. He HAS, however, abused his admin privalages a bit. I personally think WP:ROGUE should be stopped and admins should act constructively at all times. I know MONGO is a constructive admin who has made some bad decisions in the past few months. He should not let anything get to him, though.

I personally say that we should all just leave this behind us. All parties broke the rules here.


I should also remind everyone not to judge editors by their activity over at ED. We are not to discriminate against editors based on where they spend their free time, and we must always assume good faith unless there is vandalism. Several ED editors have made great contributions here, and those should not be pushed aside by the fact that they edit in a place that is very unpopular and controversial around here. Not every ED editor is responsible for the slander they make against us. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I have no right to remove a link to their mainpage while it has an attack aricle on a Wikipedian posted there? Let me clarify what I think about the ED website, outside of their articles that attack wikipedians. They routinely support anti-semetic, homophobic and extemely rascist remarks all over their website. Many of the editors there actively engage in this and I think the wesbite is complete garbage. Lastly, so I can try and assume good faith from you...please remove the incorrect statement about me editing at unencyclopedia...I have not once edited that website. Making gross accusations against me here without proof is something I am not going to put up with.--MONGO 07:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. There was, however, an editor named MONGO trolling at Uncyc. Maybe he was just an ED troll? Sir Crazyswordsman 08:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I agree about ED being garbage. They are what one would call a "shock humor" site, where the editors write insults at people and get kicks out of our reactions. And I should tell you that shock humor isn't funny (which is why I go to Uncyclopedia, which is NOT shock humor). And frankly, like I said, this is something that pretty much evolved into an all out war. I don't support any sanctions agains you, but I must ask you to keep your head held high and to keep your cool when it comes to these things. It's best to ignore it so stuff like this doesn't happen. Sir Crazyswordsman 08:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I just logged into Unencyclopedia for the very first time...looks like Wikipedia. I looked up User:MONGO there and sure enough, someone seems to have used my username here as their username there. You can ask them to do a checkuser on me there and I will provide my IP here if that will satisfy you. For the record, there wasn't any way for me to edit this encyclopedia and avoid them...it would have been virtually impossible.--MONGO 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement By TawneeLynne

I am a victim of this site and wish to join in this. They have taken my personal pictures and art and posted it without my permission. I have offered up a DMCA and then they posted my personal name and address on the site off the dmca. Furthermore, they countered the dmca with some address in the Middle East, knowing I am disabled and unable to afford the fees to file against them. Furthermore they have led others to stalk me and say they are going to rape me. http://tawneelynne.livejournal.com/399332.html

http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Tawneelynne --Tawneelynne 02:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)TawneeLynne

The best wikipedia can do is put the domain on the spam blacklist like wikia has done. Anomo 04:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia damatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia damatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 03:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking ban question

Does that include links even with the nowiki tags around it like http://www.[thesitethatcannotbenamed].com? Does it include just mentioning the domain name like "[thesitethatcannotbenamed].com"? Does it include similar domains with the same name but a different extention like [thesitethatcannotbenamed].info or [thesitethatcannotbenamed].cx (rather than .com)? Anomo 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It reads: "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it." It is not the site that cannot be mentioned. Fred Bauder 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
So the URLs can be mentioned as long as there is no link? Anomo 07:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
A disabled link is more or less still a link. Fred Bauder 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to say URLs can be removed on sight, you should say so, without equivocal language like "more or less". I would disagree that a plain URL is a link, but if you want to conflate the two, say so with certainty. Pussyfooting won't help anything. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The main point is that ED is a distraction. I don't want to waste time on it. If they wish more traffic they can advertise in the New York Times or on CNN. Fred Bauder 19:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep...it's a giant yawn and there is no reason to allow them to use Wiki as their main advertisment base.--MONGO 19:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Fred, I'm not trying to waste your time. I just went through my talk page and disabled a bunch of links by putting <nowiki> tags around them. I also have a disabled ED URL on my userpage, in the section about other wikis I edit, and sometimes refer people to when they want to contribute material that isn't for this wiki. I intentionally avoided live links because I'm not trying to fall afoul of this ArbCom decision. If plain URLs are a problem, I'd just as soon remove them myself. My common sense tells me they shouldn't be a problem in the contexts I'm thinking of, but my common sense doesn't always dovetail with WP policy, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The link still exists on your userpage. There are at least a dozen articles on Wikipedians alone which makes efforts to reveil personal information for the sake of harassment, potentially in real life, by providing places of work, real names and other things. I can't possibly imagine how advertising that website on your Wiki userpage is beneficial to our efforts here to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's no "link" on my userpage, according to the defintion of that word. There's a URL, which isn't necessarily a link, hence the request for clarification. Still I know what you mean: there's still directions to the site. As for why it's there, I think it makes sense in context. There are different wikis out there for different things. There's some kinds of information I look up at WP, and some kinds I look up at aboutus.org, some I look up at ED. I don't like the way ED handles their articles about WP admins, but that's not the whole site. I don't like the way WP handles some things, but I don't write off the whole wiki on account of that. I'm actually optimistic that the situation can be improved, in the sense of personal information being removed. The blurb on my userpage is a step towards accomplishing that goal. It also provides information about who I am, as a Wikipedian - I see Wikipedia as being one member of the family of Wikis. There are some wikis that are very good to refer people to when they wish to contribute material that we don't want. ED is one of those.
MONGO, I'm not happy about them harassing you, and I absolutely maintain your right to defend yourself against harassment. Remember when I helped explain to Karwynn about why a block for IP fishing was entirely appropriate? I'm not ignorant enough about ED, however, to believe the rhetoric about it being an attack site, or "garbage". I also know that their practice is to remove personal information, when asked politely and reasonably. I don't know if that would work for you, but it has for others. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
They are willing to remove slander when someone asks them politely and reasonably? Why would one have to even ask? Why woudl I embrace a website that endorses and even encourages harassment, racism, bigotry and defamation and then calls it "satire"...I mean, I can take a joke...and is partly why I chose my username, but when they try to bring their nonsense here on wiki, then we have a problem. Again, I can't imagine what purpose is served by linking to or, as you have it, advertising the URL of that website. It's not like it's some source of great revelation that will make this encyclopedia better.--MONGO 21:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I understand why you're upset; you have every right to feel that way. I don't ask you to embrace the website. If you find their humor ineffective or offensive, so be it. I find lots of humor ineffective, and some kinds outright offensive, and I try to avoid such humor. I do consider two issues very distinct: what happens at ED, and what happens at Wikipedia. I absolutely agree with you that it's inappropriate to "bring their nonsense" here. At Wikipedia, I wear my Wikipedia hat, and I'm against drama here. That doesn't affect the fact that I understand and appreciate the kind of satire going on at ED, and I don't for a minute imagine them to be racist, homophobic, etc. It helps knowing how many of its contributors are blacks, jews, gays, women, etc. What you see as "encouragement" of bigotry is actually a grotesque caricature of bigotry - one which exposes it as truly absurd and despicable. And yes, it's true that if you approach them with recognition that they're humans with diginity, then they're likely to dignify reasonable requests from you. You might be a special case; I don't know.
As for the value of what's on my userpage, I think it's a good idea to link to wikis whose purposes are in some way adjacent to ours. Lots of people come to Wikipedia with an idea in their mind that corresponds more closely to some other wiki. We should send them there, and we ourselves might as well know how to find information on some topics that fly beneath Wikipedia's radar. Besides the satire, ED provides valuable documentation of internet culture reported from the perspective of the bottom-feeders. Try figuring out what's up with "desu", as an internet term, by reading the article here. You can't, and that's a good thing, because it's not covered in Reliable Sources(tm). So you have to look elsewhere. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what they write about me at that website...I care about how they take personal information about folks who post things here innocently and misuse that for the purposes of harassment on wiki and there. I always defend Wikipedians from on site and as much as possible, off site harassment and I can find no reason that anyone should advertise that website anywhere on this one. I completely disagree with Fred below where he states that "your user page is tasteful and appropriate"...I don't think it is by any means. Look at my userpage...am I advertising? Am I promoting another wesbite, or endorsing another website..no. My userpage lists the areas I am most actively involved, some articles I started and some pictures. You'll find not one userbox, not one link to a website that endorses harassment. De-linking to ED is just a way to tip-toe around the issue as far as I am concerned.--MONGO 06:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I respect your right to disagree with my choices, and my taste. I'm going to continue to play the part of ambassador between the two wikis, because I think it's the right thing to do. If I have two groups of friends who don't get along, I'll persist in reminding each group that the others are people too. I don't think ED should harass Wikipedia admins, and I don't think Wikipedia should claim that ED is a racist attack site. There's room for both wikis on the internet, and I will not support holding grudges. I'm not tip-toeing around anything; I'm saying head-on that these two communities should both accept each other as different projects with different goals that can co-exist peacefully. I'm sure as hell not going to hide the fact that I'm an ED contributor and fan, because I refuse to act like it's anything to be ashamed of and hide, as some people who edit both sites currently do. Wikipedia is going to continue to look down its nose at ED and refuse to cover internet drama and cruft, as is consistent with its purview, and ED is going to continue to mock Wikipedia and note when people here generate drama, as is consistent with its purview. None of that has to mean that people should be afraid to admit on one wiki that they edit the other as well. I don't expect you to see where I'm coming from, so I guess I'll hope you can agree to disagree with me. I don't support ED's harassment of you, whether or not you believe me, or accept my good faith. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Good for you. I am very proud to say that I don't and won't edit that other website as I see it as a complete waste of my precious minutes on this earth. If you wish to use your userspace to advertise that website then I can't imagine what more we have to discuss. Any defense of that website is a weak argument. The website attacks people...are you blind to this fact? I tolerate zero harassment here and can't possibly imagine why anyone would link to a website that personally attacks anyone.--MONGO 08:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you included a direct question, I'll answer it. No, I'm not blind to the fact that they attack some individuals, nor do I agree with it, as I've said already. I don't take the fact that they do something I disagree with as an excuse to write off the whole site, just like I don't take the fact that Wikipedia does things I disagree with as an excuse to write off this site. Many disagree with me, in both cases. Do you have any friends who do anything you consider wrong? Would it be reasonable for me to say that I can't imagine why you'd be friends with them? I don't think so. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that my friends do anything wrong...that I know of. I suppose if you know there are attack articles on that website and you do nothing about it, then I can't see what else we have to discuss. Bauder stated above that a disabled link is more or less still a link, but below claims your userpage is tasteful and appropriate...so I guess I'm the one confused. I read the arbcom remedy as links may be removed and blocks may be applied for violations of the remedies. Since the website links have been removed virtually everywhere I know of, I don't see what sense it makes to have the URL mentioned on your userpage, unless you're trying to tip-toe around the issue...that is certainly what it appears to me.--MONGO 09:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
What makes you so sure I'm doing "nothing about it"? The things I don't like about Wikipedia, I work to change - why should ED be different? I'm not going to write ED off, or hide my association with it, simply because they do some things I don't like. I already replied above that I'm not "tip-toeing", or we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm saying quite directly and with confidence that I think ED is a valid website, and that there are valid reasons to mention it on my userpage. I'm not "tip-toeing", or I wouldn't have pointed out my userpage to Fred and asked him if I should take the URL down. Since I'm working to improve relations between these two wikis, you can bet that I'm not "doing nothing about it". Why not give me a little bit of benefit of the doubt? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Sums up where I stand.--MONGO 05:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Super. I have no problem with my activities being closely monitored. I, as the arbitrators cautioned, always wear my Wikipedian hat here. I'm sure I'll see you around. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think what you have on your user page is tasteful and appropriate. Fred Bauder 21:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Fred. I apologize for any inconvenience. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Back to what I started the topic as, most people will never read this arbcom case and so arbcom needs to add this to precedents list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions since it is a precent and people won't find out otherwise. Sorry if I did not see if it's there already. The list is very long. Anomo 22:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Until arbcom makes it clear that linking to ED is not permitted, even if the link is not clickable, then there isn't any precident here. Mostly, what we have are common sense things that pertain to harassment and related issues that are already covered by existing policies.--MONGO 05:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I came here to ask the same thing. When it says: "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances," does it mean no live links are allowed, or no links at all? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely no live links. And I think no dead links to specific attacks. I think going further may be counterproductive. Fred Bauder 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well,interestingly, just a couple days ago...on their mainpage, which is the link GTBaccus has nonclickable from his userpage...was an image that was personally attacking me...part of their "picture in the now"...--MONGO 03:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin meant Daniel Brandt's page Wikipedia Watch, which has a list of lots of personal info on all the admins and some non-admins (like Malber). MONGO is not included there. I looked at ED and it was just a photoshop of MONGO's head onto somebody on the empire state building when an airplane flew by. I also see that they tend not to have all that personal information stuff that Wikipedia Watch has -- they seem more interested in fiction like photoshops than real info. As for Wikipedia Watch, all of Brandts sites once were blacklisted because they redirected there. Now I think Wikipedia Watch is off the blacklist. Anomo 08:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
No, Slim was not specific in which site she was talking about and indeed, ED certainly does have attack sites about Wikipedians and non wikipedians in which not only is personal information posted, but efforts to help them locate further information of a personal nature is encouraged. I don't see the same level of "funny" lies on WR as I do on ED...ie: libel in which persons are referred to as pedophiles. That image of "me" was not of a plane flying by, but flying into the WTC, all doctored, but the effect is still the same, as an attack...but so long as they don't attack you, right. How amazing it is that the ED supportors were so up in arms about not having girlviny's ID "real name" posted in the ED article here some time back, yet this apparent founder of that website does nothing to keep personal information out of that website. [19]--MONGO 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
WR stands for Wikipedia Review, a messageboard for complaining about Wikipedia. Wikipedia Watch, a different site, is the website run by Daniel Brandt with the personal info. Also, about the girlvyni information, ED now claims that an obviously ficticious person called "Joseph Evers" owns the site -- my guess is because of the amount of lawsuits the site has. Anomo 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What lawsuits? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
My investigations suggest that the "amount of lawsuits the site has" is zero. But hey, if we're just making stuff up, I heard ED did WTC... -GTBacchus(talk) 07:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I just checked and on the 18th Raul re-added them to the blacklist (after they were taken off a month ago or so) with nothing in the talk page of the spam blacklist. His edit summary only said "restoring Brandt's sites" and then he claimed they were redirecting, but I checked them all in preview mode and they were not. I also checked and noticed that encyclopediadramatica\.com is now on there added on the 25th and there was talk page discussion, but the .net and .org that redirect to the .com site are not listed. Anomo 08:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED

Moved from RFAr main page:

Surely there are some allowable circumstances under which links to ED should be allowed? See here for full list of links. Among the hundreds of locations there are links to ED from various arbitration pages, signposts (I think the signposts links are all related to arbitration cases anyway), and numerous archives including AfDs. Could you clarify under which circumstances should these exceptions be made.--Konst.ableTalk 04:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    • The remedy does not mandate a campaign of link removal, although if someone wishes to undertake it, that is fine. It is simply that links to the site are inappropriate and may be removed, or disabled, when encountered. Should a naive user make links, they should be warned and pointed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED. There are no exceptions, but the remedy is mostly intended to be applied to links to hostile ED entries. Fred Bauder 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification.--Konst.ableTalk 00:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_MONGO_5aba.html"