User talk:MONGO/Archive24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Bill Moyers

Since you weighed in earlier in the debate regarding the exchange between Moyers and O'Reilly, I'd appreciate your input here. —AldeBaer 08:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just have too much on my plate right now to be able to help with that, sorry.--MONGO 13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No prob. You're welcome though to chime in anytime. —AldeBaer 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess we may as well redirect WP:SSP to WP:RfArb.Proabivouac 00:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi, MONGO! I think your user page is pretty slick, do you mind if I steal the code for the large bordered box? Please reply on my talk page, and nil illegitimus carborundum!  east.718  03:31, August 18, 2007 

I don't mind...but the designer was Phaedriel so you might want to let her know.--MONGO 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case for SevenOfDiamonds

I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here. Please consider at least making a statment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi there, I noticed your comments on this RfArb, and your personal page of evidence regarding socks, and thought you might be interested to know I have filed an RFCU on other accounts that I suspect are socks of ZF/NU. Feel free to read and add your view on the matter. Should you want to I can provide more elaborate evidence as to why these pass the duck test for being socks. If not that is OK too. Respectfully Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I rarely give these things out, but you deserve one for putting yourself in harm's way in my defense during my RfA. Crockspot 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated...I'm sorry comments made at another site, most long ago, were used as fodder to destroy your adminship bid. I never saw any evidence that your action<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">s on this site were an indication you wouldn't have followed all policies here regarding admin decisions.--MONGO 05:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

anonnyfell

Anonymous NY fellow?

AnonTexan, User:Merecat, Rex, Nuclear, zero. User:Stbalbach/anontexan checkuser might have more info. --Tbeatty 06:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a troll...not sure why he was only blocked for 24 hours when his account is an SPA set up solely for disruption...me thinks.--MONGO 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Assume good faith!!!Proabivouac 06:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup...--MONGO 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The AGF policy should have a new nutshell that says "Assume penis good vagina faith fuck you." - Crockspot 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think these are related: User:66.98.130.204 is first on the list. I think ryan thought rex and nuclear were the same. I didn't believe it then, but these are too many coincidences. --Tbeatty 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And see User:Hogeye User:72.225.141.250 and this edit. Hogeye is linked to rex. That IP is roadrunner in NY as well as a lot of the anon texan IPs. --Tbeatty 07:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All this is possible, but not something I am going to pursue. It has been laborous to ID Diamonds as it is, and my orginal suspicions proved wrong and it was only after I examined the diffs and the template work and then discovered other items that I saw what we were dealing with with and who. Honestly, my involvement, if this is accepted by arbcom, is to post the evidence I have on the evidence page and walk away from it.--MONGO 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

MONGO, I'm sorry, but I made a million little changes to the "Impact" section and then got an edit conflict with you--predictably, as I foolishly had it open for ages--it didn't look like you'd changed very much, in that section, so I saved mine, I'm afraid. Could you possibly redo your change/s/ to that section? I think all you did in it was change an image--not sure--it's so complicated! I'll butt out now, anyway, and leave it to you for today. Frutti di Mare 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC).

  • Ach, never mind, I panicked like a dolt, that's all. Now that I've saved it's quite easy to see in the history that the image was in fact all you changed in that section. I've fixed it, is all good, ignore previous message. Frutti di Mare 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC).
I should have let you finish what you were doing...sorry for the confusion...it's best if I don't get in the way of a master copyeditor. I sure am glad that I didn't mess you up.--MONGO 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

class=start

Sorry to ask what's probably a n00b question, but what does class=start mean? (I noticed that you added this on the Rick Jore article today.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosemite1967 (talk • contribs) 06:06, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The Wikiproject Montana template has a link to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment which explains this further.--MONGO 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Makes sense now. Yosemite1967 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion on WP:SYN or WP:OR

Don't worry, I'm not trying to draw you into any disputes. Actually, my question is mostly general, but I'll give a couple of specific examples. First, I'll start with on that's on the Glacier project page (which is why I'm asking you in the first place) — if a source gives a glacier's dimensions in width and feet, is it WP:OR (or WP:SYN) to convert this to an area that would be measured in acres? If not, (and I'm assuming it's not), why not? Secondly (and this one relates to something I've done at least once in the past but wasn't called on it), how about if a star's apparent magnitude and distance are given and a simple formula allows you to calculate the absolute magnitude from that information — would including that information be WP:OR? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have used length and width to determine rough area in acreage and hectares, etc. before. I generally subtract it a bit to adjust for the irregular shapes of glaciers, but since the actual area connot be referenced, it is borderline OR. As far as star magnitude, I guess this is a similar vein, but I am not familiar with those calculations. I would have to say that due to our need to make the calculations ourselves, we do violate or when dealing with relatively less concrete areas. The same issue applies to irregular areas such as lake, in which even if we have the correct length and width, the actual acreage is impacted by the irregualr surface area. I have seen shoreline references, but not sure how to add that to length and width to determine precise area. As a rule of thumb, (though, I have not allows followed it either), I would have to say that if we cannot reference it, then it is best to leave it blank. I'll look over the Glacier project page and see if we need to make adjustments.--MONGO 16:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To proceed

Hi MONGO. Given that Seven has stated he's leaving and he hasn't refuted your evidence beyond what he wrote ahead of time, I don't think this case needs to drag on for much longer. I guess there are two ways to go forward: either make a motion that has Seven blocked as a sockpuppet and the case dismissed at /Workshop#Motions and requests by the parties, or make a few proposals in the right sections under /Workshop#Proposed final decision, say a principle on sockpuppetry, a finding of fact with a link to your evidence, and a remedy stating Seven is to be blocked indefinitely, and hope an arbitrator brings it into the voting phase pretty quickly. Picaroon (t) 04:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably stayng out of making any motions or similar. I originally brought a more concise set of evidence to arbcom enforcement, where the responding admins were unable to reach a consensus that Diamonds was banned editor NuclearUmpf. I had entended to drop it at that point and just simply do all I could to avoid him. I did respond a couple more times to his mischaracterizations and so, it was taken to arbitration to seek a remedy. My time is very limited as of late on Wikipedia due to real life situations which might not change in the near future, so all I did, as requested, was post my evidence. I'll think it over and see what transpires over the weekend.--MONGO 13:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't like your evidence much (I probably just don't have the patience to understand it). My question is whether his current editing is responsible or not. Fred Bauder 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Then don't arbitrate the case if you are too impatient to examine the evidence....--MONGO 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And to think, the opening paragraph at arbcom reads: Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome... Go figure? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rapidly losing my respect

This is just pathetic, when compared with this. Come on, MONGO. You can do better than that! ElinorD (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha...well, you see, the thing is, I try not to broadcast excellence all over the place. I have a longer version I might work on, and add three or four more words to summarize the obvious. Thing is, no one disagrees with linking to critical commentary about Wikipedia and most fo it's editors...but no one has provided me with one good reason for why we need to link to a website that "outs" our contributors...aka: harassment.--MONGO 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
We should all change our sigs to include it. --DHeyward (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Another top article by MONGO

Only you can get Yellowstone Featured!
Only you can get Yellowstone Featured!
Only with a lot of help from my friends!--MONGO 06:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

COI ?

hmmm --DHeyward 03:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just a COI, but also it is just disruption and potential BLP defamation. Wikipedia is not the place to promote accusations...I forsee an indefinite ban...not sure why it hasn't happened already.--MONGO 06:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
hmmmmm Some might call this Wikistalking and harrassment! I am sorry if you people want to hide the Gay side of some of your RW heros. Please read the article on Outing. As more and more RWs are shown to enjoy Gay sex, especially people who condemn Gay sex but practice it themselves, like Ted Haggard it will take away some of the bad stigma. Its time for all the RW Gay sex practicers to come out of the closets and admit how much they like Gay sex! (IMO) Theres that old saying "Try it, you'll like it!" Thats too true! Why do you think more and more people are trying Gay sex!? Its okay, (IMO) to have a wife and kids and enjoy some Gay sex now and then! (no Meth or poppers though!) "Try it, you'll like it!" •smedleyΔbutler• 04:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Bmedley...running around adding specualtions about people's sexual orientation in our articles is probably a bad idea...I would only do this if they openly stated there were hetero, gay or, well, something else and it can be very well referenced.--MONGO 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Bmedley Sutler, your comments here are totally unnecessary and completely inappropriate.Proabivouac 05:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I just brought him up at ANI (again) because of this statement. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
He is (now was) FAAFA...his rant in his edit summary here is identical to the POV and ones he made when editing as FAAFA.--MONGO 06:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Which was already completely obvious some time ago when he was blocked for "proxying for" FAAFA.Proabivouac 06:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, we can't "guess" as that would be "confirmation bias", heh.--MONGO 06:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm paraphrasing Jesus, Thomas Jefferson, or Gandhi, but when we don't assume the good faith of the most obvious trolls, we're not really assuming good faith at all. Anything less is a witchhunt.Proabivouac 07:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The guy might as well admit it was him...[1]. If he hadn't started on that odd "outting" campaign about tagging bios with alternative lifestyles he'd still be here...oddly enough, I "like" FAAFA and had no real problem with Bmedley either...our interactions were rarely bad overall. You can bet he'll be back...so my advice Bmedley...be cool and help us write a better encyclopedia, okay?--MONGO 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

My RFA
I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain.

Edison 14:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Woo!

Awesome work on Yellowstone fires of 1988. I remember driving from Jackson through the south entrance only a few days (maybe even hours) before they closed it down, and seeing the fires burning on the other side of Lewis Lake. I lived in Basin, Wyoming at the time, which is about 100 miles due east of the park, and there were days when you could barely see more then 5 feet in front of you due to the smoke. Anyway, enough of my reminiscing, congrats on the featured article status. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...glad you enjoyed it. I bet those fires you saw were the Red and Shoshone fires that later almost destroyed the entire Grant Village complex.--MONGO 04:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wyoming WikiProject Let 'Er Buck Award

The Let 'Er Buck award from WikiProject Wyoming
Thanks MONGO, for your hard work improving articles about the great state of Wyoming.

On behalf of the entire Wyoming WikiProject thanks for your work in making Yellowstone fires of 1988 a featured article, as well as your tireless monitoring of Yellowstone and Northwestern Wyoming articles. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...that is very nice!--MONGO 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
May I add my congratulations as well? It is splendid work and an excellent addition to WP. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That fire progression map and some great copyediting you added helped the article greatly...thanks!--MONGO 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, MONGO. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okie-dokie.--MONGO 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm more important than you. You only commented: I'm a party! And poor insignificant SOPHIA isn't there at all! (This is my first time.) By the way, have you managed to spam your essay in any more places? I told you I was quite disappointed at your spamming abilities. ElinorD (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the spamming has commenced...see imbedded links here...to keep it from being too obvious. err.--MONGO 21:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Not bad, but you still have a long way to go. ElinorD (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I see...well, I wonder if my cow is sufficient as evidence then. I doubt she would take too kindly to someone posting where her calfs go to school or that her daddy had been turned into a steak.--MONGO 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not spam here? :) Acalamari 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome to spam at my Talk page any time, dear MONGO - but next time, bring that cute eagle instead of the cow! ;) Seriously, it's great to have you visiting me any time, sweetie. I'll keep an eye on the ArbCom case. Lots of xxx, Phaedriel - 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha! :) Thanks! I love it! Acalamari 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Certainly...--MONGO 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In recognition of good work... You have earned this...

The Featured Article Barnstar
"Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia..." For your hard work here on these [2][3] and others, I award you this barnstar. Good work indeed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey...that is really nice! Much appreciated!--MONGO 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks!

Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nehrams2020 RfA Thanks

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which closed successfully with unanimous support. I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and vote and I can't wait to learn the new tools and further immerse myself into Wikipedia! Please don't hesitate to point out any errors I make so I can prevent them from occurring again. I'm always here to help, so if you ever need anything, just let me know. Also, thanks to Wizardman for nominating me and for guiding many other editors to become admins. Again, thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 06:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WTC 7

Hi MONGO. I saw that you reverted my change on WTC 7 but "Its structural integrity was further compromised by fire, which burned through the afternoon on numerous floors.", is grammatically incorrect. It states that the afternoon was burned through - like wiring. I didn't want to make another change to the same sentence without explaining but I'd like to change it now that it's an FA. How about, "Its structural integrity was further compromised by fires which burned throughout the afternoon."? --PTR 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine.--MONGO 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the medal

Very handsome! Thank you! [Pins medal on self. Immediately gets stalked by jealous zilla.] Bishonen | talk 23:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC).

It was way overdue.--MONGO 05:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Zer0faults left you a message

Zer0faults just left you a message. Though, I had to delete it from the history, due to harassment against User:DHeyward. Zer0faults account is now blocked. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...I've been offline all evening.--MONGO 05:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for monitoring the discussion on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. I'm amazed at the amount of discussion my comment has led to, but don't have time at the moment to be involved there. Though, later tonight, will be posting new photos that can be used in the WTC7 article, and some for the Freedom Tower page. Also stopped by to see the truthers. Nothing new with them. The same people, same old signs they never update. ;) --Aude (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the usual bunch and the same tired odd story...link me when you add more images as I don't check Commons everyday...look forward to seeing them.--MONGO 06:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Posted new photo here: Freedom_Tower#Construction_gallery. Though, will try again tomorrow to get something with less shadow. WTC7 photos are on Flickr now. [4] Can upload a few of these to commons, but not sure which. --Aude (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice work...about the only way to eliminate those shadows might be at a mid-day shot in the summer...but I think it is a really terrific high resolution image of the progress...I hope you can continue to update those images every other month or so from the same vantage point...that would be super.--MONGO 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It was cloudy this morning. So, now I have something new to upload, higher resolution, without shadows. And, other material to upload. But, experiencing problems with uploading files. I'm able to get stuff on Flickr (though the resolution is lower), but not to Commons. Don't know what's going, but it's frustrating. Worst case, I can upload from work later this week. --Aude (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked over the conversation you had on the Commons village pump....not sure what the deal is unless is a problem with the file extension of the size.--MONGO 04:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think most people would give up, when running in to problems uploading. I'm close to giving up, but will try more to resolve this. Somehow User:Diliff got Image:London_360_from_St_Paul's_Cathedral_-_Sept_2007.jpg to be just 17.65 mb (under the 20 mb limit there might be), and was able to get it uploaded. I might have to ask around and see what others do. --Aude (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hum...how big is your file...I know you stated on that village pump discussion that you had stitched some images together...how about asking User talk:Wsiegmund...he is, as you probably know, an admin on Commons as well and might have some advice worth reading. I wish I could be of more help.--MONGO 05:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that oftentimes I have a file that looks small enough to email, but when it is sent, it comes back from some of my recipients as undeliverable due to some weird file expansion issues...not sure what the deal is with that.--MONGO 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Tidewater glacier cycle

Mongo I have added a glacier tidewater cycle page, The references are mainly non-web based at this point. I will add images of each glacier discussed with time.. Good work on Wyoming. I miss the family ranch outside of Saratoga that was sold awhile backPeltoms 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. I had never created a page before just edited ones that were there. So I did not to spend too much time until I saw it working. Thus, the heavy use of Viens at first. Although two of my earlier papers, back in the typewriter use days, said almost exactly the same thing. That is because we both relied on Austin Post. I hope it can survive. If not I will work on it hard before initating it, next time, instead of after.Peltoms 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Holcomb article cleaned up

I updated the Steven Holcomb article if you wish to look. Chris 14:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

?--MONGO 16:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

Ready to swab the deck!   
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew.
Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!

- - Jehochman Talk 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding projects

I've only done a wee bit on geology, my background is more in environmental type work, and I cannot abide the contentiousness between the political 'scientists' on both sides of most of those articles. I've looked at some of the geo articles that are working towards good and featured, but not done much work on them. Generally, I prefer not to start articles, but help the ones that are going. I've done a bit more on project marching band, which has less involvement than geo anyway. --Rocksanddirt 18:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay...well, if you have expertise, those articles will only get better if you help us make them so.--MONGO 09:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Long overdue

Not to self...this was obvious...too bad it took so long to get done.--MONGO 18:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Whom was he a sock of? Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know...I just knew he was a sock long time ago...I guess arbcom checkusered him/her and saw that he was probably violating our sock guidelines...maybe a previously banned editor, but not sure.--MONGO 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

As you have refused to acknowledge the prior warning I gave asking you to cease your uncivil and disruptive behavior, I have blocked you for 72 hours. I did not want this to have to happen; I really hope you can reflect on your disruptive behavior and learn to work with your fellow editors. --krimpet⟲ 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked, see ANI. Moreschi Talk 19:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, this was a very poorly thought out block. RxS 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Very poorly thought out. What is going on with some of the admins these days? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please. WP:AGF and all that? - Alison ❤ 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Krimpet, blocks aren't supposed to be used to punish people for failing to acknowledge your authority.Proabivouac 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, the block has been overturned and rejected by many. Unfortunately it seems to have been taken exactly the opposite way I intended it. =(

I respect MONGO as a contributor, and in no way do I want to drive him away from the project. But personal attacks can leave fellow editors shaken and very offended - the reason why WP:AGF is one of our most hallowed policies. MONGO has systematically and repeatedly breached this (to varying degrees of severity in individual instances), and I hoped he would heed the respectful warning I issued him. But he did not, and clearly indicated that he would continue as usual, so I gave him a 72-hour block (the duration being based on his prior block history), as a preventative measure that would hopefully be best for MONGO as well as the community. Wouldn't a long, drawn-out dispute resolution process only stir up more drama and in-fighting that further detract from our real goal of writing an encyclopedia?

Perhaps blocking was the wrong way of dealing with this, and I'm deeply sorry that this seems to have just ended up disrupting things worse. But I still seriously believe MONGO's persistence in personal attacks is a problem that must be dealt with, and I really hope both he and the community can recognize and remedy this. --krimpet⟲ 21:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to be more careful when evaluating a user's block log. There is only one apparently valid block in MONGO's log, that being 24 hours for 3RR (the first block). All the others appear to have been reversed. - Crockspot 21:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
These were not fucking personal attacks. Sarcasm, yes. Pointed, maybe. Personal attacks? Hardly. You should resign from your your admin role. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Resign? I don't think that is needed. One over-reaction does not need another. 1 != 2 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think resignation is required here, somehow. Not even close - Alison ❤ 21:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
And that's why we keep electing crappy admins like Krimpet. Oh well, at least Mercury apologized when he erred a bit in blocking someone. THAT shows honor, maturity, and support of the project. If Krimpet had any honor, they would ask for a recall. But I think resignation is perfectly appropriate. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh stop it. One ill-advised block (and it certainly was that) is not grounds for anything, least of all personal abuse in retaliation. Krimpet made a mistake, it came up on ani, and was corrected. Drop the pitchfork and move along. Tom Harrison Talk 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not personal abuse. Just listening to you here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
How many wrongs does it take to make a right, do you figure? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Read my usual comments to almost every applicant at the RfA. I'm tired of these admins. If User:FeloniousMonk comes to this chat and says, "OM, you're wrong," I'd listen. If he blocked someone, he has a history of doing it fairly and only after lots of abuse. There are tons of admins who would not make this boneheaded error. So, I don't consider it a wrong or a right. I just think it's correcting a bad mistake, so a resignation is very appropriate. That's my opinion, I get to have it (unless it's a certain right wing Christian admin who tends to unblock his own ilk, and dislikes my opinions), and since I'm not being uncivil, not attacking anyone personally, I'm going to retain my opinion for future use. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
So... how many wrongs is that? How many rude remarks equal one civil, respectful one? What's bad about stating criticism in a civil, mature, rational way, setting an example for the rest of us? Why not aim for excellence? Or are your remarks above your idea of treating others excellently? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there was any wrong here except by the blocking admin That's why the block was overturned. That's why it's a very egregious abuse of administrative tools. It's the reason that the admin in question should give up hiser tools as she's demonstrated extremely poor judgement. It's disturbing that you think that this somehow reflects badly on MONGO. Blaming the victim is not very productive. --DHeyward 03:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That's give up her tools. Besides, isn't GTBacchus referring to Orangemarlin? - Alison ❤ 03:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops my bad if I misread it. I struck it. --DHeyward 04:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Marlin I think you should be careful with civility yourself. Surely you can voice your objections without making it personal. 1 != 2 01:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Barely-veiled threats such as "I think you should be careful" being what passes for civility nowadays.Proabivouac 01:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Just step back and listen to the whole lot of you squabbling like pre-school children. It's absolutely pathetic - Alison ❤ 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Civility is bullshit. It's a way to censor individuals. So, one user can give a veiled threat about being careful. Another call us squabbling little pre-school children. At least I don't whine about civility to anyone. At least I don't hide behind the curtain of...well...bullshit. In the end, one person's civility is another person's manner of speech. Now personal attacks...that's a different ball of wax, or some other metaphor.  :) Back on topic, I think an admin who made a major fuck-up should be fired, unless there's an apology out there. But poor Mongo must either wonder why people are posting to his talk page, or he's enjoying the hell out of this.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments...no, no enjoyment here...I was offline due to work...for now on, I'll pretend I am Jesus...I shall let them smack my other cheek after they call me insane, a troll and or blind and they get nary a warning and definitely not a block...as happened just earlier today.--MONGO 05:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lest it get lost in the shuffle...

Hi MONGO. Seeing as the talk page is pretty active, I'm dropping a note here to bring your attention to this comment of mine. I am very interested in seeing this situation move towards resolution, and in order for that to happen, it will be necessary to extricate ourselves from certain circles we're going around in. On the same topic, and with more emphasis on the other side of the balance, you might also find this edit interesting. I believe that some people have the wrong idea about you, and possibly vice versa. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Resilience

The Resilient Barnstar
For Suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. For suffering being blocked for telling a troll to fuck off in an edit summary to remove trolling after they issued a death threat. For suffering fools gladly (well, maybe not gladly) and still contributing DHeyward 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was offline so I missed the fireworks...but your award is most appreciated. I can't see a lot of reason to stick around here much anymore....what's the point? I get death threats and trolling on my talkpage and get threatened with a block for telling them to fuck off in an edit summary? I have another guy call me blind, insane and or a troll and no one threatens him with a block...not even a civility warning is posted...nothing at all...this was just 12 hours ago. I have to endure all sorts of harassment, baiting, goading and character assassination and when I am not perfectly civil in the a face of this neverending barrage of hate...I get some admin threatening me with a "final warning" and then a gives me a 72 HOUR BLOCK!--MONGO 05:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, some of us supported you. I've crossed swords with you (not in THAT way) before, but I absolute detest abusive admins. I detest this place at times too. We spend more time edit-warring with uneducated POV warriors, it's hardly worth the effort. But, in the end, if we stand up to them, maybe things will get better. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not feeling very wiki-friendly these days myself. Quitting smoking last weekend probably doesn't help my attitude, but I'm not far from a retired template. - Crockspot 12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock}} I just want to opportunity to post some words on my pages and I can't edit my userpage.--MONGO 05:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock killed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay..thank you.--MONGO 06:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds closed

The above-linked arbitration has closed, and the committee has recognized that the SevenOfDiamonds account is a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf. It has been blocked indefinitely in accordance with this decision. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--MONGO 03:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Have you taken a look at the Ferrylodge arbcom case yet? There is a case being built of sock abuse and tool abuse by the blocking admin that you might find interesting. - Crockspot 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I shall check it out tonight.--MONGO 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Cops and janitors

The thread is deleted from JzG's page, so I guess I'll reply here to something you said. I think that, the more Wikipedians act like cops, the more we inflame situations and provoke more trolling. The less we act like authority figures, the less drama there is. The most cop-like admins tend also to be the most controversial, and controversy is bad for the project. As encyclopedia writers, our job is to avoid things, such as drama and controversy, that distract from the task at hand. You may think of some editors as "bad guys", but making it clear that you think that they're "bad guys" and you're a "good guy" tends to lead to escalation of conflict.

The more effective approach is to be very, very boring, to never talk about anybody's personal motivations, and to simply apply sound editorial judgment and insist that we talk about that, and not about personalities. As KilerChihuahua used to say, that's one puppy's opinion... -GTBacchus(talk) 01:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, I happen to have a whole little essay I wrote on the concept of Wikipedians as cops and non-cops. Some day, when I'm not in any disputes with anyone and when I think it might be helpful rather than hurtful, I'll post it. Doing so now would make people think I'm commenting on specific individuals and specific disputes, when I'm really just trying to say almost exact same thing as GTBacchus just said. (only, being me, I have to say it 10,000 times more verbosely). --Alecmconroy 11:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well..both of you seemed to have missed my point, and I'm not even sure what point this thread is here for. Getting back to the disagreement on the NPA policy: I have yet to see any rationale that explains how our ability to be a comprehensive encyclopedia is compromised by not linking to websites that are fail RS and are primarily used to stalk, harass and to coordinate efforts to "go after" our contributors. The recent following around of JzG when he did but a very few link removals to WR, was nothing more than wikistalking, outright wikistalking and thsoe persons should be blocked. The only time anyone should be doing such a thing is when you are dealing with a vandal, which JzG is most definitely not. I am also troubled when admitted sock accounts are using their accounts to hide their real username identities when they edit policy pages, or when an unregistered account edits those policy pages...it is normal to revert such changes to major policies by these kinds of editors. Furthermore, when I see editors who are making less than 10% of their edits to mainspace, then I worry about their commitment to encyclopedia writing, which is our primary focus. But the worst thing I see is when administrators essentially cheer on the trolls, especially when those trolls are attacking an editor they don't like. That kind of nonsense is adolescent and abusive. I am not here to babysit the miscreants...if they are problematic then they should be shown the door.--MONGO 17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I hope I can convince you that I'm not "missing your point", and perhaps explain why this thread is here. I understand what you're saying: people who are here to cause disruption need to go. My point is about how this is done. You basically have two options: You can call a spade a spade, make it clear that you think the person's a troll, and block them accordingly. Alternatively, you can simply enforce encyclopedic standards, without ever mentioning what you think the person's motivations are. One option tends to increase drama; the other tends to decrease it.

The reason I'm posting here is that I think it's important to understand that the high-drama option, although clearly intended to serve the encyclopedia, has the unintended consequence of feeding trolls. "Calling a spade a spade" creates drama, and hurts the project. "Showing someone the door" in a heavy-handed manner breeds more trolls. Don't help trolls breed. Starve them out by being incredibly boring, never calling them trolls, and never talking about motivations. You can call it "babysitting", but I'm just talking about doing exactly what you are talking about, but effectively, instead of counter-productively. Think about it.

As for "I have yet to see any rationale that explains how our ability to be a comprehensive encyclopedia is compromised by not linking to websites that are fail RS and are primarily used to stalk, harass and to coordinate efforts to "go after" our contributors." - neither have I. Neither I nor Alec is arguing that we should be linking to those sites. Go look at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, where JzG created heat and drama by removing the link without following sound editing practices, and where I have tried to demonstrate that the way to change content is by refusing to do anything other than talk about boring policy, which is applied one link at a time, for purely encyclopedic reasons. That is how you get links removed.

Talking about personalities is gasoline; use water instead. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We have different styles...I really do not think that mine is wrong. I don't know how continuing this thread is going to help us...but I do want to point out that my observation is that you have repeatedly come to the "aide" of ED contributors, hoping perhaps to restructure them, but from my vantage point, this appears to be more like defending them...I simply cannot go along with that. Miltopia is a troll...that is all he does and I do not see that he adds anything to this website except either his poorly thoughout opinions and/or anarchy. He collaborated with other EDers on that website to coordinate efforts to get me desysopped and I have the diffs to prove it. Not only that, but banned editor Karwynn is another ED editor you sometimes defended...the diffs are readily available. Karwynn was a major player in trolling efforts against me...you need to stop feeding them by acting in anyway defensive of them...that is the best way to get rid of them...if you stop aiding and abetting their efforts, or trying to reform these adolescent time wasters, then this would be a better website. I'll look forward to seeing you act more proactive in making sure these children either become productive, or are told to leave.--MONGO 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You're clearly not a teacher. You think you know "the best way to get rid of them", but you know the best way to feed them, and I have the diffs to prove it. Karwynn is an example of a troll that you were dead set on feeding and I made go away by dealing with them effectively instead of the way you do it. I know more about how not to feed trolls than you do. I have the diffs to prove it. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
MONGO... man, dude, sir, the best way not to feed them is to show clearly that you consider them children of God, and therefore aspects of God, on every level that could possibly matter, and I'm not "kidding", nor less than emphatic on any level about that. I consider you to be an aspect of God. Think about that. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You're tearing me up Mongo. I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, and trolls should be banned summarily. Take a look at the long-winded attack B has made on Felonious Monk on the Ferrylodge arbitration evidence matter. That kind of attack is ridiculous. I'm glad JzG is back to fight the good fight. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably have a chance to check that out tonight...but since I have just gotten over an arbcom case, which has distracted me from working on articles, I might not be a lot of help either way on that issue. I really miss working in mainspace these days, and one of the biggest reasons I have not run for admin again (which I know I would lose anyway) is because it takes me away from article work. Thanks for the kind words, as always.--MONGO 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I hate to point it out, as I consider everyone involved here a good editor, but 1) B is probably right - not sure what to do about this 2) JzG has proven himself a total hypocrite by editing under a sockpuppet (open your eyes, you'll see it) to shield his RWI from attack, while conspiring to violate the privacy of others who do the same for basically the same reasons.Proabivouac 10:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that B is probably right, and am unsure what to do about it. I received an off-wiki communication from a now-inactive wikipedian back in August that they had concerns about these two editors being the same person. There are certainly legitimate reasons to use "alternate" accounts, but in those legitimate cases, the accounts should not intersect, especially in disputes where admin tools will be used. The fact that so many people have suspected this sock relationship for so long tells me that there was too much intersection from the start. I am also concerned that the admin in question has gone silent, and that a group of editors seems to be attempting to intimidate participants in the arbcom proceeding. (In one case, successful to the point of their retirement). - Crockspot 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
To anyone who's dealt with this kind of thing before, this kind of statement hits all the familiar overcompensatory notes ("Next thing, you'll say I'm a sock of Jimbo Wales!") along with a preemptive laying of the groundwork for a "we're all friends in real life" defense just in case something more incriminating turns up. What I find most depressing is accusations of malice a la Diamonds: is it bad faith to notice the obvious, or to say so?
The sock has been used abusively by any standard, save that of content where I'm going to guess that he was defending (or at least believed himself to be defending) the integrity of mainspace in what has become an arbitrary game, the specific rules of which are devoid of any inherent moral value. We can be certain that this is not the only generally decent administrator who has succumbed to this temptation. Socks are everywhere. By now, most usernames are socks. Many newish administrators are socks, as can easily be seen from their earliest contributions. Do they have other accounts? No one knows, and I suspect few really want to.Proabivouac 22:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly disillusioned with wikipedia lately. Today I tried to remove a thread from WT:NPA that was nothing but a bitch fest about how bad MONGO is. I was reverted twice, and smacked down on ANI for complaining about it, as the "editor" I was complaining about is attacking me on the ANI thread. Unfuckingbelievable. - Crockspot 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
See, that is their tactic...they repeatedly ask me to AGF and they extend none to me in return. They remove material because they don't like the fact that recent and older arbcom cases prohibit them from linking to malicious websites that harass our contributors...websites that they themselves are active participants in...that is a COI, and an ugly one to boot.--MONGO 05:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether that section appears or disappears on that policy page; links of no encyclopedic value may be removed, because this is an encyclopedia, and not a soapbox or a soap opera. If somebody persists in adding valueless content, then they're being disruptive, and may be blocked accordingly. The trick is to do it all without once mentioning anyone's motives. Then it's a simple matter of "sound editorial judgment," and nobody has to get in the mud. AGF 'em to death. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WT:NPA

Re [5] - Can you point me towards a policy (heck, even an essay) that says good faith contributions from IPs ought to be removed because they are editing anonymously?

Either a) that edit summary is the real reason you reverted, in which case you need to remember that anyone may edit Wikipedia, and it was both wrong and rude to revert the edits, or b) you actually reverted because the IP's edit didn't include your Arbcom ruling, in which case you were also wrong to revert (consensus on the talk page is that linking to your ruling's no longer required as a more recent ruling on the same topic has been made). Neil ☎ 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any ruling or otherwise...it is basically common sense...if anyone is adding or removing controversial material from major policy pages, they should use their regular username. I know some people have an opinion and don't want that opinion jeopardizing their position by working on difficult areas...but how do I know that the IP isn't someone trying to evade 3RR or that the admitted sock account isn';t a sock of a banned editor. Simply put, if anyone expects me to see major changes ot a major policy stick, then they should have the fortitude to use their real username.--MONGO 05:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
How do you know it isn't someone who always contributes anonymously? I would take the edits on the value of the edits - the same argument ("it could be someone evading 3RR or a sock of a banned editor" could just as easily be applied to any user account). Assume good faith a little? Neil ☎ 10:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to pester, but I am interested in your thoughts on this. Neil ☎ 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The NPA policy is a pretty important policy and I believe that if an IP expects their edits ot stick on that policy, then they should use their real username if they have one, or create one if they don't. It is not abnormal in the least to view IP edits to contentious areas as being circumspect.--MONGO 05:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

It's a shame that your edits are almost continuously reverted. Sad that WP has gone down the path it has... You have supporters. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--MONGO 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous comment on WTC 7

Hi Mongo, I'm not going to push it further, of course. But I take letting such comments stand (while not engaging with them) as a way of "dealing with pestering and misplaced criticism". If this commentators aim was truly to disrupt, then your original revert would be a first bit of gratification. (If we started warring over it now, that would of course really make him LOL!) Just explaining my reasons. Best,--Thomas Basboll 06:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He would have faired better had he not told us we were on an acid trip...once he did that, the rest of the coment just looked to be disruption.--MONGO 07:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong: I'm not really questioning your judgment. It probably was mainly intended as disruption (s/he said s/he couldn't stand keeping quiet any longer, etc.). My point was that, even then, either ignoring or slowly reverting the comment would have been a safer way of dealing with it. Anyway, no need to spend a lot of time on it.--Thomas Basboll 07:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I would never remove your comments...I have always considered your comments to be generally decent. Without someone asking questions, then the answers may never be produced.--MONGO 08:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 08:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Glaciers

Do you think an article is needed for individual glaciers? How about Wyoming Glaciers, or adding the glaciers to the peak article? --DutchTower 12:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is at least one reseach paper that has yet to be published that will have more detail about these glaciers such as the amount of retreat, thinning and other details and I thought it was best to create some short stubs for right now about each one...I know they are all very similar aside from a few words changed, but they will be enhanced as soon as I can get my hands on the citable information.--MONGO 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That was well said

...about admins assuming good faith of each other. Could I request a bit of that from you, please? I have not said a single word EXCEPT in support of you and of Wikipedia. When will you stop accusing me of doing otherwise? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It definitely wasn't directed at anyone in particular..it was addressed to all. If I worded it otherwise, it wasn't meant to be taken that way.--MONGO 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying it was directed at anyone in particular. I'm just saying that I'd appreciate if you refrain from suggesting that I'm supporting people whom I'm not supporting. That seems to me to be counter to the idea of AGF. If I mistook your reply to me, and you don't actually think I'm supporting trolling behavior, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
IMO, yes, at times, from my vantage point, you have helped some "less than excellent" editors at the expense of our better contributors. Some of these "less than excellent" editors have edited ED, a website you yourself have edited as well, at least in the past. We must AGF until there is no reason to no longer do so. I still AGF towards you as I always have (regardless of what you might think), but I am hoping you don't aide the "less than excellent" editors in the future if you know they are besieging our better contributors. In my opinion, acting as a babysitter or spending countless hours trying to reform those that are generally incorrigible should not be done at the expense of those who are here to write, expand and maintain this encyclopedic effort. By that I mean, article creation, article enhancement, free-use or appropriate fair use image uploads, vandalism reverts, constructive policy discussions, applying appropriate blocks in the correct manner, protecting pages as needed, deleting non-encyclopedic articles or aiding in any of these and/or similar capacities. I don't find that those that are here to waste time creating further drama at arbcom cases or policy discussions with obvious sock accounts to be here for the best interests of the project, especially if they seem to be making few if any contributions elsewhere...we need to weed out those that are detrimental and keep those that are helpful...and that helps us retain and attract more worthwhile contributors. If newbies come here, see some of the anarchy created by the timewasters and see the difficulty in getting speedy resolutions in dealing with these timewasters, then they will (and have) abandon the website. It is best to do all we can to AGF of those that really deserve it and cease doing so for those that have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't deserve it.--MONGO 09:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've replied by email. I disagree with much of what you've said, and agree with a lot for the "wrong" reasons, but I think we're understanding each other better than ever. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I just replied to you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370, and I've got to say... are you serious? Do you honestly believe that I am trying to abet harassment, or not? If not, why on Earth would you need to ask such questions? If you assume good faith from me, why not act like it? I have never, ever, suggested that you would intentionally abet harassment, or refrain from reporting abuse when you see it; why do you suggest those things of me? I feel hurt by your post over there. I thought we were understanding each other a bit. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comeon...I asked you a question, and it was an honest one...why would we even discuss how to get a new IP in that thread...why would we...what purpose does it serve?--MONGO 06:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, that is not the question you asked me. The question you asked me was whether or not I would help with a sock check. I am offended that you find that question to be worth asking. It should be utterly obvious that I would do so, in a heartbeat. If you understood me at all, that would be clear to you. You would also realize that, in such an event, I would be emailing Miltopia, trying to persuade him not to disrupt Wikipedia.

In that thread, I was replying to what someone said. If someone thinks IP addresses are hard to come by, they might as well find out sometime that they're wrong. We might as well all know the reality, that IP addresses are easy to change, and we might as well face that reality with our eyes open.

If your question was an honest one, it seems to indicate that you don't think I'm acting in good faith. (If I'm wrong, then please forgive me, but please explain.) If you know that I'm working for the good of Wikipedia, why would you doubt for a minute whether I would help prevent someone working around a block? Do you seriously believe (a) that I would help Miltopia evade a block, and (b) that I would do it by posting in public when I could obviously just email him? I'm certain he knows far more about changing IP addresses than I ever will.

I mean, are you thinking about where I'm coming from, at all? If so, then why should I believe you, when you said you assume good faith from me? How can you assume that I'm acting in good faith, and that I'd turn around and undermine our project? You can trust that I mean every word I say, such as "I support the block of Miltopia." This is like a recurring theme with us, MONGO. I'm not working against Wikipedia, no matter how you cut it. I am your loyal supporter, and always will be - you may count on that.

I have been playing the very same tune this whole time. It goes "never, ever, ever, ever, ever make ad hominem comments. They're unhelpful, unnecessary, and unprofessional; they feed trolls." This is pretty much the only thing I've ever said to you, over and over again, for like a year now. In that time, you have accused me of saying a myriad of other absurdities (and never apologized for a single mischaracterization of my actions or words). When will you acknowledge that you hear my message, and not some nonsense that I would never say in a million years? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You are an administrator...I expect you to block those that are harassing our contributors...not try and reason with them...they are reasonable...they are harmful to the project...if, as you say, Karwynn was one you dealt with, then I can't understand why when he was wikistalking me, you didn't block him...instead, all you appeared to be doing was trying to "reform" him. With your waek approach, he wasn't convinced ot stop stalking me, he felt as if he had your support, as an administrator...look, this is going nowhere. I know what you are trying to say and I commend you on it, but we can't assume good faith when there is no longer any reason to....if someone has a history of wikistalking, disruption and almost nothing worthwhile article wise, then they need to find a new playground.--MONGO 07:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least we're talking in clearer terms now. You think my approach is "weak", and I think your approach is "heavy handed". My approach is based on cause and effect. I see that the heavy-handed approach causes at least as much harm as it prevents. You "can't understand why I didn't block Karwynn". It's because blocking someone is a bad idea (drama-positive) when you can use words to neutralize their actions (drama-negative) instead.

Frankly, I don't care whether you assume good faith of others. You can judge people to your heart's content, as long as you keep your judgment to yourself. As soon as you start talking about another person's motivations, you're hurting the project, period. This is true no matter how much of a shit they are, and no matter how much you think they need to be "called a spade". Calling spades hurts us, every time.

As for the history with Karwynn, when I said I have the diffs to prove it, I meant it. Your interpretation is incorrect. I'm talking about a very specific interaction that went like this: Tony Sidaway said something to Karwynn, Karwynn talked back... you said something to Karwynn, Karwynn kept talking back... Tony and you took turns failing to make Karwynn go away. I showed up and said a few words, and Karwynn actually went away. You two were giving Karwynn sandwich after sandwich, and I said, "restaurant's closed". A block is not the best way to do it when you can do it with words. Trolling can be stopped in its tracks with well-chosen words.

You think I'm "trying to reform" "trolls". No. I'm talking to human beings, because we have no choice. The world is too small to think there's "us" and "them". We're all in it together, like it or not. You can either set up an adversarial relationship, or some other kind. One leads to more drama, the other doesn't. Simple cause and effect. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And ultimately, after much ado, he was later indefinitely blocked...so you're approach did not work in the long run. Meanwhile, he didn't cease his efforts, he continued them, to MY detriment. This has happened time and again and sadly, will probably happen again. But I will continue to edit here and write articles as I have time, whether the timewasters like it or not.--MONGO 08:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Take care, MONGO; you have my support. My approach was never tested in the long run, because there were too many people committed to the heavy-handed approach. Until my way is tested, you can't say whether or not it works. I know that some people know that my approach does work, and I trust them a lot. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
GT, I think your approach is misplaced. It would be a great approach to take with grade school kids who have gone astray, and can have their whole life changed by some good guidance. But this is not grade school, and the trolls are generally not stray school kids, they are professionals at the art of trollery. Case in point, my recent dust up with Viridae over Miltopia. Miltopia obviously took Viridae's lack of concern over my complaint as support for his behavior, and immediately kicked up his trolling two notches, until I was finally driven from the discussion at WT:NPA. (Even though he is gone, I am so thoroughly disgusted that I doubt that I will ever return to that discussion). And what was the result of Viridae's approach? Jimbo had to ban Miltopia himself, setting off one of the biggest drama fests and wastes of time that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Cause and effect. The entire Jimbo drama fest that is currently going on could have been averted if Viridae had taken a tiny bit more of a hard-assed approach, and Miltopia may have even avoided an indefinite ban. Trolls are here to troll, not to improve themselves. Trying to improve them is only enabling them to be bigger badder trolls. - Crockspot 14:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, maybe we should move this from MONGO's talk page. I don't wish to bother him, but I disagree with you on several points. First off, your interpretation of events is by no means the only possible take on what happened. For example, "Jimbo had to ban Miltopia himself." That is an extremely dubious assertion. Jimbo did what he did, and he didn't do it in the best possible way, and the drama-fest was caused entirely by people being unable to refrain from ad hominem remarks. The drama-fest could have been avoided if we adopted some basic standards of professionalism at Wikipedia. All of the drama is caused by people thinking that spades need to be called spades, aloud and in public.

I'll note that neither you nor MONGO has made a case that adding insult to injury is somehow necessary. My central thesis - the only point I care about - is that ad hominem comments are always unnecessary, unhelpful, unprofessional, and tend to raise heat. Nobody has argued that calling someone a "troll" or calling their edits "bad faith" is in any way necessary. We can block and ban without ever name-calling - so why name-call?

Next, you're making questionable assumptions about people whom you clearly do not understand. "They are professionals in the art of trollery." That's nonsense. Do you know these people? I do. Miltopia is the age and disposition of many students that I've worked with. Miltopia is not a professional troll, nor is he necessarily a committed non-troll. He is (was?) wide open to influences. He gave Wikipedia a chance, and if we hadn't called him names at every turn, and read bad-faith into everything he did, he would have left his trolling ways behind. You can't say I'm wrong, because we never even tried it. We had a chance to make Miltopia into a Wikipedian, and we lost it. We amused him with our absurdity more than we impressed him with our professionalism, so now he's laughing at our circus, and who can blame him?

Some claim that because he's laughing now, that proves that he had bad faith. What rubbish. If you throw someone out because you suspect they're against you, and then after you throw them out, they're against you... that doesn't prove that they were against you until you went and threw them out!.

You say "trolls are here to troll". That may be, but my point is never call somebody a troll. Doing so makes things worse. Nobody has argued, nor can argue, that name-calling is ever helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think MONGO minds, and I doubt this will drag on much more than a couple of replies. If trolls would be banned like they should be, then I would be perfectly happy never to utter the "T" word again on Wikipedia. I have been following Miltopia's posts over at Wikipedia Review, and nothing that I have read gives me any other opinion than that he is a professional troll, and damn proud of it. He is like a pig in shit over there, being surrounded by many like-minded folk. (Read, professional trolls). Do I need to dig up every single thread from WR that advocates and calls to action every troll to "take down" and "destroy" Wikipedia to convince you of the intentions of a great number of members at WR? I won't fault you for trying to improve the attitudes and behavior of people like this, I just think it is a great drain on WP resources, when the potential for success is very low. Perhaps you can set up another wiki, like en.wikipediabootcamp.org, and we can banish people there for you to do counseling and rehabilitation work on them. I am now recounting all the time I have spent in the last week or two related to arguing over Miltopia. It has absorbed nearly all of my wiki time. I have other work I can be doing. He should have been gone weeks ago. - Crockspot 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You're still making ad hominem remarks, and nothing will ever make those useful, helpful, productive, or professional. This is the most important point I can make.

Utterly independent of that point is Miltopia's behavior over at WR. Of course he's talking trash about us there; we just threw him out of here. If Miltopia is a professional troll, then it's because we made him into one. He wasn't a professional troll one week ago, and now if he is who can blame him?

More importantly, and please don't miss this point: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ANYBODY'S INTENTIONS ARE; WE HAVE NO BUSINESS TALKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S INTENTIONS, EVER. If that is the only point I make in this life, I'm satisfied. "Judge not." Take it seriously. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia was trolling from the beginning...why do you think I indefinitely blocked him long ago. To suggest that we contributed to something he already was is preposterous. He wasn't reformable from what I can see.--MONGO 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No surprise Miltopia is now at WR...I think I remember reading one contributor saying I would be "allowed to join" as well if I was banned. So perhaps being banned from here is an automatic invite there...kind of goes ot show what type of website that is...it has much less ot do with a "review" and a lot more to do with a serving as an outlet for all those banned editors to whine about how horribly they were treated at the hands of the evil Wikipedians. In response to GTBacchus, there is nothing wrong with trying to reform problematic editors, but to do at the expense of others is foolhardy and just plain wrong.--MONGO 17:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, you're still missing (ignoring?) my main point. I'll say it again: "There is never any excuse for ad hominem remarks. They are unnecessary, unprofessional and unhelpful." You seem to have dedided to make sense of me in terms of my "trying to reform problematic editors". That indicates that you don't understand where I'm coming from, but I'm comfortable with that, as long as you hear the one, single important point I've been making. I'd like to reply to something else you said, but I can't because then you'll continue to ignore the one point I truly care about. No personal remarks. Ever. Try it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that your ongoing accusations are just as ad hominem.--MONGO 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

More clarity

I think I can be a little clearer than I have been so far... here goes.

MONGO, you seem intent that I'm "trying to reform" people. That's way off-target. I'm not here to reform people, I'm here to help build an encyclopedia. If somebody gets reformed as a side-effect, super. If nobody gets reformed, then oh well. The encyclopedia is the only priority here. Perhaps we agree on that point.

Now, this may come as a surprise to you, but I want to see the same people blocked that you want to see blocked. I just want it done for clean reasons, because otherwise we're hurting ourselves. "Clean", in this context, means utterly untainted by any kind of personal aspersions being cast. No name-calling, no "spades", no funny stuff. By the book. They didn't bust Al Capone by wringing their hands about how evil he was; they busted him on tax evasion. What could be more boring than that? That's the right way to build a 'pedia.

The ED article is another example. The trick to deleting that was to do it by the book. If we deleted it because we found it abhorrent, then it would keep popping up again, forever, because people looking over the backstory would see invalid reasons for deletion, and question them. Now, people looking at the history actually see very boring policy reasons being quoted: stuff about reliable sources and blah, blah, blah. No drama there.

Now hear this: I'm not talking about reforming anybody. I'm saying that if you taint our editorial decisions by making a lot of noise about personal crap, then you are hurting the integrity of the project. We cannot do things for reasons of personal moral outrage, ever. If we do, we get drama for the rest of our lives. If we are boring instead, the drama will evaporate. Try it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really getting tiring.--MONGO 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for commenting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. I'll try to make some changes based on your comments. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI report

MONGO. It is a message for both of you. I see signs of a bad atmosphere. Please concentrate on other things or else i'd suggest the DR for you guys. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whats the DR? I was just reporting his ongoing incivility, an accusation he has all too often accused me of...I saw no reason for him to add fuel to the dispute between Giano and TonySidaway...but I appreciate the advice as always.--MONGO 06:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your complaints page

Hi MONGO, I take it your complaints page is mostly decorative. But I don't see my RFC and ArbCom request about you as "complaints" in the spirit you seem to be suggesting. In fact, being listed there vaguely troubles me (that my name's in your "book", somehow.) I'm sure you don't mean it that way, and it'd be cool of you to just remove my "past actions" from what seems to be a list of what you have to put up with everyday. Unless the apparent taunt is meant as such. Either way, Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 15:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I went and removed the editorializing..the page was set up in good humor, it wasn't meant to insult you in any way. I just put those items there since there listed actions filed against me, or major actions I was involved in.--MONGO 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It was not just the editorializing. You have a list of objections to your conduct, and you have a place (the "complaint board"), where people can, as it were, shove any further issues they may have with you. As the RFC was closing you called it "petty and vindictive" (good humour?) and this list is a way of showing people (not just me) that you still don't take it seriously. If by "good humour" you mean to say that the RFC (and any other objection to your conduct) remains a joke to you, then I have understood it correctly. But why not just let bygones be bygones?--Thomas Basboll 06:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Geez...the page is a slap in my own face, which I did deliberately. If one can't find some humor in the face of so much drama, then life isn't much fun...try laughing with me and it won't seem like what you think it is.--MONGO 10:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, we don't see eye to eye on this. My point is precisely that the page construes a sincere attempt to improve the level of civility at Wikipedia as just another example of so much "drama". In any case, there's no reason to use my actions as comic material for a joke I don't get, and to do so despite my request to the contrary.--Thomas Basboll 11:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I put the page up for deletion.--MONGO 12:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Zapped. ViridaeTalk 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)