Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wizardman (talk | contribs) at 18:33, 19 January 2008 (→Support: nevermind). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:33, 19 January 2008 by Wizardman (talk | contribs) (→Support: nevermind)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

MONGO

Voice your opinion (talk page) (33/18/5); 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 4,000 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.
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.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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)
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
  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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsiegmund (talk • contribs) 16:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Unsigned. Does it still count? Wizardman 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity as to who left the comment or their intentions. WjBscribe 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Ha, it got signed by SineBot right after I left my question. Nevermind. :) Wizardman 18:33, 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)
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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  19. 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)
  20. 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)
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)