User talk:MONGO: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:25, 1 November 2007

My other car

If you're looking for some Wiki Love you have come to the right place!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm beginning to think that your ongoing accusations are just as ad hominem.--MONGO 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 and 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)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 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.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|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.--[[User:MONGO|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 and 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?--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 06:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)