Misplaced Pages

Regarding Blu Aardvark, he e-mailed me the statement I posted, correctly noting that if he posted it himself he would be immediately blocked. I am aware of the general prohibition against banned users having any say at all on Misplaced Pages, however, I am not comfortable serving as a gatekeeper deciding what evidence the committee should or should not see. Obviously the arbitration committee is well aware of Blu Aardvark, and if someone from the committee removes his statement (or if they direct me to do it) I will take that as the final word on the matter. I hope this is satisfactory. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SoftPaleColors

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Mushroom

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

Yeah, right. Let me recap this:

• You took a screenshot of a page you never edited, containing personal information about MONGO.
• You took it from an account that you used for just three (3) hours.
• You talked to someone on IRC and sent him that same screenshot to explain "what all the nonsense was about" (?).
• That screenshot mysteriously found its way to User:Fuckface at Encyclopedia damatica.
• Fuckface posted that screenshot to ED to harass MONGO.
• You never edited Encyclopedia damatica and you have nothing to do with it.
• The fact that you're so interested in ED is just a coincidence.
• The fact that you tried to prevent the deletion of the Encyclopedia damatica article is just a coincidence.
• The fact that you requested the unblock of ED user Weevlos is just a coincidence.
• The fact that you strived to keep links to ED in Misplaced Pages articles is just a coincidence.

I'm surprised you couldn't come up with a better excuse. Now, here's my theory:

• You are User:Fuckface and you took that screenshot to harass MONGO.
• You made a mistake, forgetting to remove the name from the photo.
• Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Mushroom (Talk) 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Georgewilliamherbert

General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific

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

With that said;

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

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

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

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

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

Provocations

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

Nonfeasance

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

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

What to do

Perhaps -

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

My two cents, plus significant inflation.

Georgewilliamherbert 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

George, I don't have to ask anyone to help me when I am being personally attacked. There was only one block I issued against any of the major names in this arbcom and that was to User:Karwynn for reposting personal attacks on an Rfc that was filed against User:Hipocrite. He was warned to not do this, and refused to remove them and was blocked. I not once blocked any of the other major names here in this proceeding (Rootology, Badlydrawnjeff or SchumuckyTheCat). The others blocked may have protested, but examine their edits, recognize they are meatpuppet or sockpuppet accounts and that they did indeed harass me...I don't need to get someone else to go and block them for me. You are confusing this with with a different set of parameters than is declared by WP:BLOCK, which is policy. Read the policy and start assuming good faith on my part.--MONGO 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You write:

I don't have to ask anyone to help me when I am being personally attacked

My point is: you should.

I do not question your good faith. Good faith is not enough. Admins who fight back willy-nilly exacerbate conflict, not resolve it.

Georgewilliamherbert 05:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor followup. Your edit summary on your last was "this guy has an axe to grind I do believe".

What on earth do you think my well-ground axe is in this matter?

Georgewilliamherbert 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's nice.--MONGO 06:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved party Pavel Vozenilek

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

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

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

Can you verify it's notability with reliable references, as the inability to do this was the reason it was deleted. ED posts and encourages their editors and other contributors to post personal information about Wikipedians, a serious privacy issue, and there are numerous articles there that attack wikipedians with libellous commentary. We also don't have articles on Wikipediareview or Daniel Brandts hivemind site for mostly the same reasons we don't have one now on ED. I am hoping we never have another article on this encyclopedia about ED, unless they become so notable we have to, which I don't imagine is likely to happen soon.--MONGO 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We do, however, have an article, as an example, on WikiTruth, which is similar in regards to "articles...that attack wikipedians." The ED article did not actually violate any policies in its mere existence, but it doesn't look like this RfAr is going to touch that, and the cabal isn't going to allow further review, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiTruth is verfiable., --MONGO 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're okay with "attack sites" that meet your personal view on verifability? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not okay with them...and it isn't my personal view...it's policy. Millions of websites out there, and you're constant sniping about ED doesn't make me think you understand policy or how it works...this is a wiki...get it?--MONGO 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So what's policy? Both are attack sites, both at least meet the letter of verifiability. I'm not looking to rerun the thing here, but it's not about me understanding policy, it's me not understanding where you're headed with this currently in your responses to this guy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see either of you post evidence that ED meets verifiablity...see the policy.--MONGO 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Links had been supplied through the cource of the AfD that demonstrated that ED merited at the least stub status. rootology (T) 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the community does not agree with that summation.--MONGO 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Why the hyperagressive drive to see the article kept? Why to see it undeleted, now twice?--MONGO 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave up on keeping the article kept when DRV1 ended--look at my contribs. My point all along has been that the police stating of WP vs. any crticism is dangerous. Answer me this, MONGO, if you could: should WP link to anything that is critical of it? If a news outlet tomorrow does drop an expose bomb on WP that includes personal info, do we not talk about it on WP or link to it? rootology (T) 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ED is established, has plenty of material and, at least before their current WP obsession, most of the content was quite good. That they post personal information on Wikipedians is their right and their problem.

Late reply on this, for what it worth: the WP content is like a fraction of their articles. I counted back during the AfD, it was like 18-20 out of 3,500. Hardly an obsession. rootology (T) 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This goes OT but I feel the same trend on ED as on Uncyclopedia. The more people come here the worse the content gets. It is probably law of Wikis. Pavel Vozenilek 19:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have watched a very similar conflict on Czech Wiki lasting for years, hence my comment. I do not think the ED war was needed - you could ignore the front page or sue them. Looking for justice or revenge via WP is futile and counterproductive, for what I see there and here. Pavel Vozenilek 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the article for deletion, nor did I close the deletion. I didn't close either of the two deletion reviews of this article either. I haven't Rfc'ed or arbcommed anyone on any of this, so the "problem" you have is apparently with the well reasoned closing of the deletion discussion and the deletion reviews, for which I had no part in. In case you don't know this...I did try to ignore it, I did try to avoid confrontation, but when these people came here to Misplaced Pages to harass me about their bullshit there, then they started the war. I have been trying to get it to end now for six weeks. I have an encyclopedia to write and these people are interfereing with my time to do so. If this sort of thing is going on in the czech wiki for years, then I fear what time has been wasted that could have been better spent.--MONGO 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this appears to be a red herring in this context. Given that it just failed its umpteenth DRV the only thing left for it would be an article specific RfAr or an appeal to Jimbo. I know there are people who disagree with the deletion, but this RfAr is not the time or place, in my opinion. Georgewilliamherbert 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Until their site gets more press, it's a non issue. Of course, when/if they do, I have to admit I will look forward on principle to it's immediate recreation should they gain notability/noteriety in the press to merit inclusion. rootology (T) 00:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Deletion of a page which had been temporarily restored as evidence

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

Statement by Crazyswordsman

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

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

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

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

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

So, I have no right to remove a link to their mainpage while it has an attack aricle on a Wikipedian posted there? Let me clarify what I think about the ED website, outside of their articles that attack wikipedians. They routinely support anti-semetic, homophobic and extemely rascist remarks all over their website. Many of the editors there actively engage in this and I think the wesbite is complete garbage. Lastly, so I can try and assume good faith from you...please remove the incorrect statement about me editing at unencyclopedia...I have not once edited that website. Making gross accusations against me here without proof is something I am not going to put up with.--MONGO 07:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. There was, however, an editor named MONGO trolling at Uncyc. Maybe he was just an ED troll? Sir Crazyswordsman 08:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I agree about ED being garbage. They are what one would call a "shock humor" site, where the editors write insults at people and get kicks out of our reactions. And I should tell you that shock humor isn't funny (which is why I go to Uncyclopedia, which is NOT shock humor). And frankly, like I said, this is something that pretty much evolved into an all out war. I don't support any sanctions agains you, but I must ask you to keep your head held high and to keep your cool when it comes to these things. It's best to ignore it so stuff like this doesn't happen. Sir Crazyswordsman 08:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Statement By TawneeLynne

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

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

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

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

Statement by David D.

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

Statement by Cyde Weys

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

Statement by TheronJ

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

Statement by uninvolved party Anomo

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

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

Comment by uninvolved party Grafikm_fr

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

Statement by Tom Harrison

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

Comment by Kelly Martin

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

Statement by Prasi90

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