Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:44, 20 January 2008

MONGO

Voice your opinion (talk page) (72/51/10); Scheduled to end 07:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

MONGO (talk · contribs) - I've decided that I would enjoy being an administrator again and I am asking for your support. I was desysopped by the arbitration committee at the conclusion of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan over a year ago. I would like to be able to demonstrate that I have learned from past mistakes and instead set an example that other admins can follow. For the 13 months I was an administrator previously, I performed over 3,500 administrative actions, most of them speedy deletions. I've been an editor on Misplaced Pages for three years and have about 38,000 edits across numerous namespaces. I've contributed numerous articles and have helped get eight of them to featured level. I also upload images to Commons where I have released almost all of them to the public domain. Why do I want the tools? I am only able to contribute for a few hours a day anymore, and I find myself doing primarily admin related work such as vandalism reversion and similar chores. Article writing takes more time for research than I am currently able to set aside, but with the hour here and there I have, I can still help with copyvios, speedy deletions and blocking egregious vandals. I hope you'll allow me to serve the community as an administrator once again. Thank you, MONGO

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Primarily the same things I did in the past, which were helping clean out the backlogs for speedy deletions, blocking obvious vandals and assisting other editors in various details that only an administrator is able to perform.

"follow-up Q' do you think that there is now a backlog in speedy deletions? DGG (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I started 4 featured articles and was a major contributor on another 4. I am most pleased with Retreat of glaciers since 1850, Yellowstone fires of 1988 and Shoshone National Forest. I also started the WikiProject Glaciers and am active with numerous other projects as I have time.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been involved in numerous conflicts and there have been times I have felt stressed by these events. There have been times I have been less civil than I should have been, or, as some have suggested, a bit overly reactionary. I was involved in long standing conflict involving one off-wiki website, most of which is documented in Requests for arbitration/MONGO...there, one editor was indefinitely banned. I have also been in various disagreements regarding the level of coverage of September 11, 2001 conspiracy theories that should be permissible in our article space. I believe I have made major improvements in how I communicate with those that want more coverage of these conspiracy theories and I try hard to discuss the merits of the arguments and not the editors...but I do find myself being called a POV pusher and other things, though my stance has always been to document only the known evidence that can be reliably sourced. I will do all I can to ensure the editing environment is calm and pleasant if at all possible.

4. I'm almost afraid to ask, but do you intend to make yourself open for recall if promoted again? Lankiveil 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

In all honesty, I haven't decided that one yet. I would accept, as I certainly do now, the voice of the community as far as whether I am "fit" to be an administrator. The admin tools to me are just a way to help manage the website, not some kind of power trip. If they were THAT important to me, I wouldn't have waited more than a year to try and regain my adminship. So, yes, I would submit to the will of the community, but not sure I would list myself outright as an admin open to recall.--MONGO 04:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See MONGO's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Requests for adminship/MONGO
• Requests for adminship/MONGO 2
• Requests for adminship/MONGO 3

• Links for MONGO: MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MONGO before commenting.

Discussion

• A lot of opposers are using variations on the argument "gets into too many disputes". Of course he gets into disputes -- he edits extensively on the September 11, 2001 attacks, which is probably the most divisive political issue of our times. Should we deny adminship to everyone who edits in that area? And isn't "gets into too many disputes" just a variation on the "too controversial to be an admin" argument? szyslak 11:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Were the "disputes" and "mishandling of tools" related to just that article in particular? Rudget. 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • They were related to that group of articles. szyslak 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite popular opinion, it is actually possible to work on controversial articles and still behave yourself. It's not easy, but working on controversial articles is not an acceptable reason to behave badly. I have not investigated the particular issues involved here, so I'm just speaking generally. So as long as people are referring to the user's part in adding to the controversy, then referring to being in a lot of them is not a poor argument. - Taxman 02:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I absolutely agree that you still have to "behave yourself" if you work in areas of controversy on Misplaced Pages. And in my view, MONGO behaves himself. I wasn't making excuses for MONGO; I was just pointing out what a weak argument "gets into too many disputes" is, in and of itself. What makes or breaks an adminship candidate lies in how they handle the disputes, not how many disagreements they run into. There are many excellent administrators who "get into a lot of disputes" in inherently controversial subject areas, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Lyndon LaRouche and Scientology; yet they still handle themselves well. Examples who stand out for me include Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Will Beback. (Not that they or anyone else never make mistakes, of course.) Imagine if their RFAs failed based on the "gets into too many disputes" argument. Just think how much the encyclopedia would lose, without such editors standing up for NPOV. Nobody likes disputes, but we can't always avoid them. We have policies and guidelines like WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but there's no such policy as "WP:Don't get into disagreements, and just smile and nod while aggressive editors with extreme POVs run ramshod over the encyclopedia...". What really sets MONGO apart is that he is not afraid to deal with 9/11 "truther" POV warriors, while other editors would shrink away. szyslak 09:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I think people just don't consider someone making a complaint against an admin (which happens all the time to any admin doing anything even slightly controversial) as a "dispute", it only becomes a dispute when the admin starts to retaliate, with MONGO invariably does. --Tango (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Proud to be the first to support. Long-time contributor whose edits have clearly been a net benefit to the project. I think most of the issues of the past have been resolved and I honestly do not believe that he ever deserved to have his adminship revoked by AbrCom. Regardless in his time as admin he did alot to help clear backlogs and considering his consistent editing to the project since then I believe he would be helpful in those tasks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - Darn it, not the first support. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Time to get back in the saddle. east.718 at 08:05, January 19, 2008
4. Support -- knows this place better than most. - Longhair\ 08:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - clearly been around. can be trusted. good at 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Solid contributor. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support The fact that he sticks with this project after going through so much turmoil shows how devoted he is to bettering Misplaced Pages. I'm confident he will not repeat the same mistakes again, which weren't severe enough to merit desysopping to begin with. szyslak 11:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support A genuinely good contributor, who has hopefully learned from his previous experiences. Throwawayhack (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
9. I'm willing to give him another try. Grandmasterka 13:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support with pleasure. Mongo's a great editor and admin, and a very decent person. SlimVirgin 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support An extremely devoted contributor. Does all he can to help Misplaced Pages. Captain panda 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support -- longstanding contributor. --Asterion 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Mainly due to experience. GDonato (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - User:Dorftrottel 14:29, January 19, 2008

    See here for details on my reasoning. The essentials are that MONGO has an attitude and that's a good thing. We need more people who have demonstrated an uncompromising wilingness to vouch for encyclopedic standards and the ability to quickly and reliably discern edits of merit. To me, MONGO's contrib history shows both many times over and this far outweighs any past mistakes. User:Dorftrottel 21:28, January 19, 2008

16. I have not always agreed with MONGO, but I think the Arbcom was wrong to desysop in that case, and MONGO has done a good job in keeping the 9/11 conspiracy theorists at bay. Try to be a bit more diplomatic in your wording though (speak softly and carry a big stick etc.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Absolutely. —Cryptic 14:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Anyone can learn from their mistakes, and I believe that MONGO has done so. Deserves another chance. --Anthony.bradbury 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Strong Support Most definitely. Best of luck to you, MONGO! GlassCobra 15:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Strong Support There's no doubt that MONGO can be gruff at times; but, he's much tamer than many who still wield the mop. He undeniably has the project's best interests at heart, and has the drive and experience to handle tougher tasks than most. Giving him the mop again would greatly benefit the project. Xoloz (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Misplaced Pages needs more administrators willing to stop the pushing of nationalistic POV, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and original research. This is a difficult job that often creates controversy. However, with MONGO's experience, I think he will be extremely careful not to repeat any past mistakes. We give editors many extra chances. MONGO deserves a second chance too. Jehochman 15:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Support Willing to defend Misplaced Pages against troublemakers and nationalists, hopefully of all stripes. Adminship is no big deal. Lawrence Cohen 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC) #:Change to oppose, see below. Lawrence Cohen 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

22. Support He works hard to improve Misplaced Pages and believes in our goals. Deserves another opportunity to serve as an administrator.Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Support great contributor to the project, extremely dedicated in the face of stiff opposition and harassment in the past. Most would have abandoned the project by now under similar circumstances. After all that, I don't know why he would want to be an admin again, but if he's willing, I wish him the best of luck. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Support. A fine editor who definitely deserves and should get the tools.--Samiharris (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong support per Xoloz. ElinorD (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Support, great user with loads of edits. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} 16:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Support, with the comment for the record that the candidate (like any other administrator) should not use the tools with respect to areas where he is personally involved in a dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. For the reasons stated by Dual Freq. Neutral Good (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. MONGO has my full confidence. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Support; experienced, sane, and possesses loads of common sense. Antandrus (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Strong Support - Will definitely help the project with the tools. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
32. MONGO has always had my confidence. He continues to have my support. Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
33. Support, MONGO has my confidence and support as well. Good person, good editor. Dreadstar † 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
34. Support - I belive MONGO has learnt lessons from past mistakes and will once again make a fine administrator on the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I agree with Xoloz. Mongo has produced some regrettable diffs but I think he's doing the right thing on a lot of articles, when you really get down to it. --W.marsh 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
36. Yes. Mercury at 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
37. Yes of course. KillerChihuahua 18:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
38. I strongly support this nomination: MONGO is a great user: he's a brilliant content contributor, an effective user, and, despite what the opposition says, I've found him to be civil and kind. He cares a lot, and stands up to trolls and other bullies and cowards, and hasn't let them drive him off the project. Him being an admin again will be positive, and I don't believe he'll abuse the tools at all. Acalamari 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Indeed, I do encourage editors to read the thread Alison has referred to here for convenience. Read it through, especially what Mongo is saying and I think you'll agree that instead of "massive assumptions of bad faith" you'll find him bending over backwards to AGF. It wasn't Mongo who supplied the heat (such as there was) to that conversation. Mongo, while outspoken, has done significant good for Misplaced Pages. You don't have to be an admin to do good surely, but I think Mongo has reached the point where he understands the boundaries and will be fine. The Arbcom decision was borderline, and even Jimbo said at the time that he would support Mongo in the future. He was speaking as an editor obviously at the time, so take that for what it's worth to you. In the end, the questions is whether Mongo will be a net gain as an admin and whether he is likely to abuse the tools. At this point I think it's clear enough that he has a good enough understanding of tools not to abuse them and so would certainly be a net gain. Unfortunately there will be some opposes here based on content issues (especially 9/11 conspiracy theory related)...hopefully editors can see through those. RxS (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
40. Support per above. --Filll (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
41. Support - the conversation with Alison below is somewhat disturbing, but I think MONGO does a lot of good work and there's no reason whatsoever to believe he would abuse the tools. --B (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
42. Support Known this editor for awhile. Mongo is a good contributor. He did his best in the face of pov pushers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists when most editors would have thrown in the towel. I believe in second chances. We all make mistakes. I believe Mongo has learned from them and will make a better admin from the knowledge he has gained.--Ѕandahl 19:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
43. SUPPORT John Reaves 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. I have only good experience with him. - Darwinek (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
45. Support --Duk 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
46. Support, I believe this individual to be a net asset to the project. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. Yes, MONGO is controversial and has strong opinions. This is in many ways a good thing, since it demonstrates his genuine passion for the project, as well as his essential honesty. But more to the point: the fact that someone is argumentative and opinionated is not in itself a reason to oppose them for adminship, as long as they don't abuse the admin tools to pursue a personal agenda. MONGO did not systematically abuse the admin tools, and, as pointed out above, there are many current admins whose use of the tools has been far more controversial. What I gather from the arbitration case is that, on one occasion, he got into a conflict with another admin, flew off the handle and performed a couple of dodgy sysop actions, and the ArbCom decided to desysop both of them to appear even-handed (and possibly pour encourager les autres). Given his long record of good admin actions, a sound history of service to the encyclopedia, and the long period of time which has elapsed since his desysopping, I think we can trust him to be a sysop again. I should also add, briefly, that I fully understand his passion for the BADSITES policy, given that he's been a victim of harassment on ED (which is a truly repugnant site; unlike WR et al., which have some genuine claim to be reviewing Misplaced Pages and its problems, ED is basically a trollish slanderfest which is almost certainly going to be sued for libel at some point). Walton 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
48. Support, as someone who knows how to use the tools effectively and yet has had to work without them for more than a year now, MONGO is highly likely to use them with care and carefully avoid violating policy on the proper use of admin tools. So a return of them seems to be a good idea and beneficial to the project. NoSeptember 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. Mongo has paid dearly enough for his one error which, in light of later developments, was not as bad as it might have seemed at the time. He should be reinstated. Str1977 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
50. Support No questions, no doubts. •Jim62sch• 21:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
51. Support, for a couple of reasons: a) on principle, I'll take someone who has learned from his/her mistakes over anyone who doesn't think that he/she is capable of making any - and he is very clearly wiser from his experience; b) nobody seems to be arguing with his ability to be prudent when he wants to be; I read Alison's complaint below, and I'm not impressed. MONGO has every right to question the participation of people in WR, and he was very civil in his reservations and disagreements. I would urge him to take a deep breath when he finds himself on one side of a contentious issue. But if we were to clip the wings of everyone who got too passionate about issues, there wouldn't be many editors left here, and the articles wouldn't be as good. --Leifern (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. MONGO's a guy with integrity but with a short fuse. I'll support that kind of admin over the mealy mouths any day. He's also never gotten enough credit for his devoted defense of WP:FRINGE, a sludge where too few admins are willing to get their feet wet. Frutti di Mare (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
53. MONGO is one of the most dedicated editors in the project, and was harrassed by severe trolls and such and keeps on editing. Tools should have never been removed from him. Proud to support Secret 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - trustworthy editor. Disagree with Alison's comments. Addhoc (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
55. Support - Overall a strong addition to the fray.--Cberlet (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - There are many administrators who are worse. Doesn't seem fair to have a higher standard to acquire the tools than there is to retain the tools. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
57. A current admin as bad as MONGO wouldn't lose their tools, and he won't mess up in the same way again. So why not let him have the tools? -Amarkov moo! 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
58. Support per above --kingboyk (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Mongo. Sarah 23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
60. Support Yahel Guhan 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. He's learned his lesson. Let the community forgive him. Samurai Commuter (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    nb. above editor has total 85 edits, first edit 08.01.01. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

62. Strong support per all of the above and, to be honest, most of the below as well. MONGO has learned what needed to be learned from past mistakes and the project needs people whoa re prepared to stand up and be counted. Guy (Help!) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
63. Strong support, this editor is brave and a true troll-slayer whenever I have seen him in action. Lobojo (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
64. Support as per my past, positive interactions with this editor. I have no doubt that he will make good use of the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
65. Support, good editor. --STX 04:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
66. Support yep. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
67. Support His hard work on Misplaced Pages far out gains an negatives and he is a major asset and deserves to have the tools again. ---CWY2190 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
68. Support If not Mongo then who? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Time to right a great wrong. Sophia 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
70. Support - Yes. I am supporting him. --Bhadani (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
71. Support. Giving him back the tools will be a strong net positive for the project. Cool Hand Luke 10:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
72. Support - Garion96 (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We have the unusual benefit here of not having to guess how this candidate would use the tools- we already know. Friday (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose as user doesn't seem to be able to WP:AGF. diff -Dureo (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose Impressive edit history, but seems to get in a lot of fights.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Quite strong oppose Whilst this user has demonstratrated the ability to use admins tools in a "good" way, he has a long history of asuming bad faith and generally seems to get involved in disagreements a lot. Admins are expected to be much more reasonable, able to sit down and have a cup of tea.--Phoenix-wiki 11:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - too many disputes and cannot trust user with tools. EJF (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - deletes legitimate sources of information and neutral language from 9/11-related webpage without providing an explanation. --Sannleikur (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   User may be opposing per this comment Rudget. 12:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose, although I've got no problem with MONGO editing on controversial topics, what I do have a problem with is the way MONGO always seems to get involved in drama when he does so. Has misused admin tools in the past, and I'll have to disagree with those above, and say that I think his desysopping was very much warranted. I acknowledge that MONGO has made a huge stack of valuable edits since his desysopping, but I just do not trust him with the tools again. Lankiveil 12:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
8. Oppose, per the diffs provided here: . Maybe not worth a blocking, but not appropriate behaviour for a prospective admin. MichelleG (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
9. Oppose. My experiences with MONGO do not lead me to believe he would use the admin tools appropriately. - auburnpilot talk 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Regretful oppose. I respect MONGO's dedication to the site and I think in general he would be a fine admin. However, following the admittedly highly regrettable personal attacks he faced on an external site, he has in my opinion advocated an understandable but overly simplistic agenda regarding so-called attack sites. That in itself (which could merely be called a disagreement of opinion and is frequent and desirable amongst dedicated Wikipedians) is not a reason to oppose. However, he has fairly recently continued to advocate this agenda with such passion and zeal that I cannot be certain enough he would not use admin tools to support it with actions beyond what could reasonably be called consensus on the matter. I'll be fully prepared to support MONGO in an RFA in a few months if either a) the so-called attack sites issue does not resurface and is shown to be passé or uncontroversial, or b) if it does resurface, MONGO either treats it with greater dispassion or stays away from it. Martinp (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Changing to Regretful strong oppose per Alison's comments, below. When I made my vote above, my remarks referred primarily to MONGO's contributions around the time of the RFAR BADSITES case this fall. Alison's link below shows that MONGO's obsession (to be blunt) with this issue is still alive and well as of late December 2007, something I was not aware of. One of the current painful kerfuffles before ArbCom which is tearing apart part of the community (we all know which one I mean but I won't name it to avoid it spreading here) is at least in part due to several esteemed wikipedians(administrators and nonadministrators) exhibiting an obsession and tunnel vision around issues which are important, but not nearly important enough for the continued disruption the resultant conflict is generating. I am therefore very afraid of promoting another also esteemed wikipedia user who appears to demonstrate similar tunnel vision around a different but high profile issue to a position of greater authority. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Martinp (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose as an admin; suport as a wikipedian. MONGO is a wonderful asset to wikipedia, but we are better off with a touch less drama. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose. Seems to feed on drama, I've seen him in passing in rather questionable matters, and I am worried that he would in fact abuse the tools. Alison's diff below sums things up, I'd say. Wizardman 16:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose - While I can understand his position re. BADSITES and the dreadful incidents regarding himself, his massive and ill-directed assumptions of bad faith on the part of others concerns me greatly. This example is obviously the one I'm most familiar with, but there have been others. I've seen him doing some excellent work on WP but admins need to be super-neutral on such matters and basically, convey the will of the community in as fair and as considerate a manner as possible. I'm not so sure he will do this - Alison 16:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Looking at that thread, while it looks like he was needlessly aggressive with you, it was perfectly reasonable for him to ask how the CheckUser powers were obtained. Personally I think CheckUsers should be elected by the community to fixed terms; at present there is no real accountability. I have no opinion on WR, BADSITES etc., but I do feel very strongly that anyone who holds an official position should be prepared to explain themselves to anyone who asks. (I'm not suggesting any bad faith or poor decisions on your part - from what I've seen you're a perfectly good CheckUser, as well as an excellent admin, and I know you would never abuse the tools. But I just don't think that asking someone why they were granted the CheckUser powers constitutes an assumption of bad faith.) As I don't know much about the whole WR controversy, though, I could have got the wrong end of the stick here (hence why I haven't voted on this RfA yet). Walton 17:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    If you read on, it's readily apparent that it's a BADSITES issue;, "My concern was related to your participation in a website with a known history of attacking our contributors". My second-last comment on the thread sums it up. Basically, MONGO bullying me over Checkuser was because I posted to WR. I don't wish to stir up further drahmaz here, so this will be my last comment on the matter. People can read it through and judge accordingly - Alison 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    My choice of words and comments were mistaken. However, seriously, as long as I might have been on this website, I really didn't know who you were or how checkuser tools were given, nor did I know all you have done to protect this website from those who wish to harm it. I'm pretty well versed in most areas of this pedia, but the entire checkuser thing is something I am not very familiar with overall.--MONGO 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

14. Change to Oppose Per Alison's evidence at massive and ill-directed assumptions of bad faith. Lawrence Cohen 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose Discombobulator (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Alison. I'm sorry but we really don't need more of that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    To put that in other words, as long as you can't let go of past disputes or can't figure out that the best solution is to not read these drama sites that gets you all worked up I don't think you are ready for the tools yet. And that is a damn shame because you are a fine editor! EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose essentially what Martinp and Alison said. May be a great editor but not someone I'd trust in a position of power. (adminship is a position of power, relatively speaking) - TwoOars 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose, per Alison. krimpet✽ 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose. People who do not have a problem with attacking those they disagree with should not be admins. Actually, they shouldn't have a practically clean block log either. -Amarkov moo! 18:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

19. Strong Oppose if I was deemed unfit to be an admin, Mongo certainly is. He regularly makes personal attacks, both on and off site.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    So in other words, you are opposing because you were desysopped? Acalamari 19:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose This user is not sufficiently inclined to AGF.Edivorce (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose, completely unsuited to adminship. Everyking (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose, per his interaction with Alison and the over-zealousness on the BADSITES thing that it came from. This user has become addicted to wikidrama; His edit-warring on a policy page (, , , , , , , , , , , all within a two-week period in October 2007), shows that he fails to understand the spirit of WP:3RR; along with that, some of the edit summaries in those edits show that he does not adequately understand WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA either (ironically enough, the latter was the policy page he was edit-warring over; BADSITES again). I do not doubt that he thinks he is acting from good motives, or that he is a nice person. However, this kind of behaviour shows that he has failed to make the necessary improvements since his deadminship. Giving him the tools back would be a very serious mistake, in my opinion. --John (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Though I have rarely (ever? I can't remember doing so -offhand) opposed any RfA's, it's warranted in this case. R. Baley (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Lest anyone think I have an ax to grind, I was able to find 3 edits in my contribs (ctrl-F search for 'Mongo') which were Mongo related: R. Baley (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose User seemingly can not avoid drama, and has been involved in several (though unaccepted) requests for arbitration since his desysopping.--Toffile (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Note: this is Toffile's first contribution in over a month. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Additional Note: Toffile has been a registered editor since June 2005, contributing 800+ edits to the mainspace. R. Baley (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

25. Oppose Previous issues have been caused primarily by MONGO's attitude, and I see no evidence of that having changed. --Tango (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Strong OpposeToo many WP:AGF violations in the past with no evidence of change as stated by Tango. --Veritas (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose per Alison and others. I should note in doing so that I am impressed with this user's off-wiki efforts in combatting very serious harassment of Wikipedians. However, that does not for me at least mitigate this user's long history of personal attacks, failure to assume good faith and the endless drama generated from this user's disputes with others, especially on right-vs-left hot button political topics. That is acceptable with a user, as we have many fine contributors in a similar situation, but with admin tools it becomes a hazard. Orderinchaos 19:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose Per Alison etc. The drama is drastically diverting this whole project. I am sure there are better un-drama editors out there to whom the bit should go. --mceder (u t c) 19:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose, sorry but this is bound to cause more drama. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose - per Alison and Martinp; I can't see an immense amount of improvement, espcially in AGF, since the (IMHO deserved) desysopping. BLACKKITE 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose We should have learned by now that otherwise-exceptional users who get in fights make bad administrators. Sam Korn 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
32. Absolutely not. While he might be good at writing articles, he is not fit for admin duties, as per above points. Majorly (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
33. No. I hardly even needed Alison's link to know about his massive and repetitive tendencies to assign guilt by association. He threw a lot of mud in "BADSITES part 2", and there was no "bending over backwards to AGF" there. —Random832 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose Per all the sited diffs. Needs to assume good faith and be less.... dramatic. Misplaced Pages is not high school. --Sharkface217 20:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
35. Strong Oppose. He's fine as an author of mainspace articles, but not so good as a person to be trusted with any sort of power or authority over others. He has been a major force in the BADSITES nonsense from its inception; the oft-cited ArbCom decision constantly used in arguments from authority in that area had his name on it. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose Per . JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose with deep regret. I really like MONGO as a person, and think he means very well. And he's often right about stuff, important stuff... But somehow I don't see him having the "deft touch" needed to be an effective administrator, so I cannot support this request. Not everyone is suited for the drudgery, general scrutiny, slings and arrows, and second guessing by the peanut gallery (here and elsewhere) that come with being an admin here... also, per Martinp and Alison. John, I don't think MONGO is necessarily addicted to drama, it rather does sometimes seem to seek him out instead of the other way round. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    I stand by my judgement, but you were right, it was lazy of me to make my !vote based on that subjective judgement. I've amended it accordingly. --John (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

38. Strong Oppose Was incredibly incivil in my only interaction with him. On the Salty Walrus article, an admin denied the speedy, and his response was to put it back on. I removed it and asked him to take it to AFD. His response was to remove it and tag the article yet again. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose. The articles that he has worked on as the primary editor and nominated for Featured are excellent. Unfortunately, however, he was a strong supporter of the BADSITES effort and, as far as I know, has never admitted that the campaign to censor websites that a small group of editors didn't/doesn't like was misguided and wrong. He also refused to participate in an RfC concerning his behavior just a couple of months ago . Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Might I mention that some evidence presented in that RfC against MONGO shown here, a specific user was later indef banned by Jimbo Wales - Quote: "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (user not here to work in good faith with others to build an encyclopedia). Block log JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

40. oppose well known anger and paranoia problem. Merkinsmum 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
41. Oppose Does not comprehend consensus, or how lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and far too easily baited (by users all to ready to bait), to be entrusted with dispassionate use of the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
42. Oppose due mostly to recent diff cited by Alison. I do not doubt MONGO's sincerity, good intentions, or dedication to this site, and he has made extensive valuable contributions. I also do not doubt his ability to perform many of the administrative tasks he cited above in his answers to the questions. I also firmly believe in forgiving past mistakes and not allowing "scarlet letters" to forever taint well-meaning editors. But I am concerned that he has displayed a long, steady history of failure to assume good faith and high reactivity to trollbait due to an "us vs them" mentality of WR, and aggressively pursuing suspected editors without sufficient evidence. I have serious concerns with how he would use his tools in terms of WP:SSP, blocking, page protecting, and related areas. In his noble quest to rid Misplaced Pages of trolls and those who stalk and harass other editors, I'm afraid he's unintentionally fostered an environment of suspicion, accusation, and drama that is detrimental to building a strong Misplaced Pages community, and will affect his ability to wield the mop appropriately. ~Eliz81 23:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
43. Oppose The above arguments are pretty convincing.--Bedivere (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
44. Oppose per Alison. Given the current mood, I do not think adminship is likely for MONGO for quite some time, then again, consensus can change. However, I would ask MONGO to study these oppose comments thoroughly and learn from them - it is clearly not a trivial issue or human error that you are being denied the tools, it is a problem which you must fix. Only then will you be able to regain what you have lost via ArbCom - otherwise the ArbCom move was pointless. When someone is desysopped it isn't so much a punishment but a chance to mend one's ways and move forward. It is difficult, because grudges may still exist from those whom with you argued and feuded over the issues you have become infamous for, but it is still possible. Learn from these mistakes instead of cursing your opponents and the community will thank you for it. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
45. Per Alison. There's also too much drama surrounding him for my liking. — DarkFalls 01:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
46. Mongo is an excellent, wonderful editor, whose article-writing I respect and admire in the utmost. However, he is far too passionate regarding issues close to his heart, and is immovable on positions he holds regarding important matters in the community. While I can absolutely understand some of his opinions regarding badsites etc, and his tenacity and defence of his positions could be considered admirable, his behaviour towards Alison and Krimpet in the recent past - two admins whom I have never seen acting in an untoward manner - and his serial assumptions of bad faith indicate that he is currently not suitable for this role. With enormous regret, ~ Riana ⁂ 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    Krimpet issued a rather terse "final warning" on my talkpage, citing what she felt were evidences of my incivilities . I removed her warning because I believed, as did the majority of the community, that they were frivilous...she then subsequently blocked me for removing her warning! I hadn't even commented anywhere since her final warning statement. The block was overturned quickly and I never even knew I had been blocked since I was offline the entire time and then saw much commotion about the event. It needs to be noted that of the first three diffs she provided as rationale for her final warning, I was in communication with Miltopia, who was subsequently banned indefinitely by Jimbo Wales. The arbcom diffs she provided were on a case where I had submitted substantial and in the end conclusive evidence which led to the banning of another editor....I tried to ignore that guy, but it was almost impossible since he has a history of creating new socks and going after people. The last diff she cited was after Viridae had warned me to be more civil to someone who had told me he wished I would get cancer! That editor was never blocked and Viridae didn't even bother to warn him...I mean, take a look at that editor's contributions....and not one block...82.37.85.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I admit I regret my conversation with Alison, but indeed, I do think anyone who is trusted with so many powers on this website should at least AGF towards me when I ask her questions and do what I can to urge her to not contribute to WR...and she turns around and does that anyway feeding the egos of many a banned editor there by posting a complaint about me in a thread started by notorious troll Rootology! Rootology was indefinitely banned by arbcom in the RFAR MONGO case after it was demostrated that he had used the moniker "Fuckface" on the ED website and was one of the primary contributors to articles there that harassed our editors...I am very disappointed that the irony of that matter is so lost.--MONGO 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

47. Oppose. I have never interacted with MONGO but I have read some of the fantastic national parks related articles he's created. I have to regretfully oppose based on Alison's post above. I encourage MONGO to keep up the good work with the parks related articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
48. Oppose While most of the time I believe in 2nd chance, you had a history of misusing your tools. If your were blocked for a short period of time for misuse, I understand that and forgive it. But when you're desysopped by ArbCom, this must be serious. OhanaUnited 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
49. Oppose The fact there was an RFC just two months ago, about constant civility problems, compounded by recent discussions (as noted by Alison), makes this vote inevitable for me. SirFozzie (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
50. Oppose I'm sorry MONGO, but I have to oppose at this time. You have chronic incivility problems and being desysoped by the ArbCom for not handling disputes the proper way. I won't go into detail given all the reasons for opposing are listed above by the Wikipedians who participate here. PrestonH 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
51. Oppose. Based on his past history, very strong emotional reactions to certain issues, and problems with WP:AGF, I'm not confident that this user would use the tools wisely. *** Crotalus *** 09:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. :O OMG drama – Gurch 10:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Gurch, who puts it best. Rudget. 11:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Some good contributions in the past, but the opposes bring up many strong points. Cirt (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
4. Neutral per Cirt. Spencer 12:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral per Gurch, mostly. Also, as much as I respect MONGO and what he has been through the opposes do have valid concerns that require further consideration. Also, MONGO deserves credit for not having reapplied sooner. Despite my doubts I think he is entirely entitled to have a fair RfA. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral for now. MONGO has definitely been a MAGNET for drama, but perhaps that isn't a good reason to oppose. I'd like to see some diffs from opposers during the course of this RfA to backup MONGOs part in the drama-factory. 14:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Take a look at the ArbCom case he was desysopped following, the evidence you request should all be there. It is now up to MONGO to provide evidence that he's changed. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Since its more than a year old, I was hoping for something a bit more recent. 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   I see no reason to assume anything has changed just because time has passed. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   How about this RFC from a few months ago. MONGO refused to participate, on the grounds that it was "harassment", but it contains some much more recent diffs that I found useful in deciding how to vote. Lankiveil 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

   If anything, that RfC seems to be weighted in MONGOs favor. By a significant margin, too, including support for him from admins, stewards and Wikimedia reps. 04:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

   Look at the diffs. I'm not saying that MONGO was not provoked (indeed, the trouble seems to happen only when he is provoked, he is quite constructive when nobody is under his skin), but I expect better from a prospective admin than gaming 3RR and inserting material into WP:NPA outside of consensus. His attacking of contributors based on their affiliation with outside sites is also worrying, no matter what (in my opinion, unfair and unreasonable) acts those sites may have taken against him. Lankiveil 04:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

   In the end, the result was that we decided that what exists now at WP:NPA, which emphasized attack links and not attacking sites, were what needs to be regulated. A reading of some findings such as this one may provide insight to some of my positions.--MONGO 05:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

6. Neutral. I'm in the same stance as EconomicsGuy. bibliomaniac15 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Per Gurch. Will 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
8. zOMG drama, but we never have enough of it, really. Миша13 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral Whoo boy... MONGO is a great editor, but this whole issue is a bit too opposable. Jmlk17 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Per Gurch and Misza13. Mønobi 02:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)