Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/MONGO - 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 Kizzle (talk | contribs) at 17:49, 15 November 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:49, 15 November 2005 by Kizzle (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

MONGO

Requests_for_adminship/MONGO|action=edit}} Vote here (25/6/1) ending seven days after 5:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO (talk · contribs): He's an incredibly courteous user, a certified expert on anything regarding national parks, he has 6,107 edits as of the establishment of this rfa, and if anyone needs an example of his ability to get past differences for the betterment of the project, I can't think of a better example than my RfA. Heck, there was an attempt to nominate him for an RfA a few weeks ago, and two people voted for him before he even accepted it! If it weren't for the fact that he just went on vacation, that RfA would have passed IMO. We need more people like MONGO as admins. Karmafist 17:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I am honored to accept this nomination MONGO 05:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Pre-emptive support Great guy, always civil - persistent and thorough with a cool head in controversy. --Doc 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support - again, I thought he was one. --Celestianpower 17:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Absent Minded Nominator Support - I used to feel like Lulu, heck I even asked JamesMLane at one point what I could do to stop the POV wars me and him had. That was back when me and MONGO were newcomers. He's a right winger, i'm a left winger. In the real world, we might have disagreements, but on Misplaced Pages, we're all family: this project supercedes any ideology when you're on here, IMO. I can only hope the rest of the world feels that way about respecting their fellow man someday and rise above their differences. Karmafist 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, MONGO is an OK bloke. — JIP | Talk 15:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support good editor and will be great admin.Gator(talk) 15:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support On wikibreak but spotted this. All of my experiences with Mongo have left me with a great impression. He is both dedicated to wikipedia and helpful. Banes 15:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support seems good.  Grue  15:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Cliché #1. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Super tree-toppling Support. Its about time! I was about to nominate him myself. He is one of my five favorite Wikipedians, I like him more than Jimbo!Voice of All 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support - excellent vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 20:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Good editor, I have had positive experiences with him --Rogerd 22:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support Private Butcher 23:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support Excellent user another RFA that I got beatin on to nominate --JAranda | watz sup 00:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Merovingian (t) (c) 00:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. NSLE 00:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support--Duk 01:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support - won over by the strength of your answer to question #4. BDAbramson T 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. KHM03 04:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support -- I did some research, looked at the answers, and decided that I should be acting in good faith in this matter and voting for support. Regardless of the user's past, he's explained his actions to a degree that satisfies me. I am always willing to give someone a chance if they show the proper attitude, and I think that MONGO shows that attitude. --Martin Osterman 04:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Extreme Cheesehead Support. Nice user, level headed (unlike me) and I honestly thought he was one. :-) --WikiFanatic
  21. Support, per the answer to question #4. However, I must say, you've got to work on your temper a little bit. As an admin, you'll be on the front lines against vandalism, and some vandals will go to the point of death threats to continue with their lunacy. I'm confident that you'll learn to stay cool even in those situations. Titoxd 05:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support, but I second what Titoxd says about your temper.--Sean|Black 05:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Tony Sidaway 06:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) An independent thinker, but fundamentally fair-minded.
  24. Support Bygones are still bygones. Alf 15:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support — Eoghanacht 15:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support - No-brainer. --kizzle 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. StrongWeak oppose. My experience with MONGO was via Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit, and various talk pages that spun off that, where he was consistently belligerent and confrontational with multiple editors (including myself). Moreover, much of his confrontation was around him pushing very NPOV political opinions. That was a while back, so maybe he's improved, but I just can't see someone with those habits making a good admin. A look at MONGO's user talk page shows a lot of further rancor as well. (followup: MONGO's below answer shows a growth of maturity; I don't withdraw my vote entirely, but it is weak rather than strong now) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: I was actively involved in the AfD debate for WPWfem too, and I and MONGO were on opposing sides. Still, his arguments were good, and I haven't had further bad experience with him. The only person on the AfD debate I really disliked turned out to be a troll. — JIP | Talk 16:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    There were post AFD issues that I hope MONGO will elaborate on below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    There were numerous trolls on that PfD(project AfD) and perhaps MONGO over-reacted slightly. Nevertheless, his agruments, as JIP noted were well-thought out. He is one of the most polite editors I have come across. I often talk to him about conduct issues of others just to see what he thinks before I decide what to do. He is definetely a Voice of Moderation, no pun intended...;-).Voice of All 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm afraid I must object. When the WikiProject for Encyclopedic Merit was originally founded, MONGO spent a lot of time arguing (and edit warring) about which usernames were allowed on its membership roster, leading eventually to the page being protected. I don't find that attitude very constructive. Radiant_>|< 17:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    You mean removing obvios IP vandal "members" with NO other edit history. I find this a very peculiar Oppose vote, coming from a reasonable user such as yourself. Perhaps the edit warring was worse than I thought...but I doubt it. Those users(or socks) were clearly trolls.Voice of All 18:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC) (Lulu: i.e. repeated deletions of memberships of FCYTravis, Zoe, Ngb, User:172.130.8.51, Sdedeo, Morwen, Hipocrite, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, etc. who disagreed with MONGO)
  3. Strong oppose, ditto above objections. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. As above. This sort of edit war, especially when carried on by sockpuppets (84.67.79.63, 81.79.117.98, 84.68.242.172) to avoid breaking 3RR, does not inspire confidence. — Dan | Talk 02:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    I agree that edit warring is bad, and I was wrong to do so. However, your accusation that I used a sock puppet account at any time is baseless and completely incorrect. I log in from two locations and one is IP 68.13.94.113 and the other is IP 63.113.14.5 . Both originate from Omaha, NE. U.S.A., which is where I live. IP 84.67.79.63 is from the U.K. IP 81.79.117.98 is also from the U.K. , and IP 84.68.242.172 is as well . If you still feel that I use or have used a sock puppet account, then by all means ask David Gerard to check me out. MONGO 04:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose as per the reasons above. Mongo does not have the temperament for adminship. User:Zoe| 03:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Radiant. Too controversial for adminship at this time. Xoloz 05:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Evolving, Please see question 4 below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose Dodged my questions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong Neutral "I was wrong to remove names" was actually not in your initial response to question 4, which led me to believe you were defending the practice. I'll happily bygones the incident, now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Comments

  • I'd like to say one thing. Even though I nominated him, if this rfa was going on any time before July or August, i'd probably be a Strong Oppose. He was a Right Wing POV Warrior just like I was a Left Wing POV Warrior in our collective early edits. However, it's my opinion that the WFD imbroglio changed him(I was there and voted strongly against it.), which is best evidenced by this thread and that link I put above. I don't know about anyone else, but in my opinion the most liberal thing anyone can do is sow the seeds of peace whenever the opportunity arises, and despite any other views or disagreements we might have in the future,it's my view that MONGO did that post-August. Karmafist 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I've been doing some RC patrol and routinely get beat out on reverts of vandalism therefore the Admin tools would help me better contribute in this area and fight vandalism. The ability to speedy delete nonsense articles and block repeated vandals would be of great help as well. I would also particpate in closing out AFD's ensuring I always follow the rule of rough consensus as a bare minimum.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Though I have yet to bring an article up to featured status, I have started over 75 articles, almost all of them regarding areas of land management. I suppose I am most proud of Shoshone National Forest, though I still have plans to greatly expand it in detail. There is so much yet to do! I also believe that I helped for some time to bring the George W Bush article more in line with WP:NPOV policies.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have been known to come across as somewhat combative, especially in my earlier edits, but my wording then was always more abrasive than my true sentiments. I feel as though everyone I have met here is my friend to some degree and truly believe that the vast majority of editors here are all trying to do the right thing. I have had conflicts with some editors such while working on the George W Bush article yet feel that even in this case, some who I may have been harsh with and still have disagreement with in terms have content, are people that, like me are trying to make the articles as neutral and informative as possible. I try and make an effort to extend an olive branch as often as possible.
4. The conflict at Decency/Encyclopedic Merit Debacle (DEMD) was long and difficult, so I have a long multipart question-info request. I am hard-pressed to determine my vote, but I am certain it will have "Strong" in front of it.
1. Briefly describe the genesis and timeline of the DEMD.
2. Briefly describe the major arguments of the major players to the DEMD. If categorizing players into constituencies helps, please do so.
3. Briefly describe actions taken by the major players/constituencies to the DEMD, and categorize from your current perspective which of those actions were either A. Serious Wrongs, B. Minor Wrongs, C. Irellevent or D. Helpful to the Encyclopedia.
4. Would you have done anything differently if you could turn back the clock to the start of the DEMD? What? Why?
5. What do you think my answer to question 4 would be?
Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
These questions (with the possible exception of 4.4) are quite outrageous and improper, and I would strongly urge MONGO to ignore them. This RfA is about whether or not we can trust MONGO with admin tools, it is not about 'DEMD'. Why should MONGO provide a history lesson? And why on earth would MONGO want to describe the arguments of other users, or categorize users into consitituencies, or pass value judgements on their actions?? (THe last would be quite impproper.) Why should he second guess Hipocrite's views?? What type of agenda lies behind this? I'm damned if I know. Doc 16:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I will clarify my questions after MONGO answeres them or refuses to do so. Understanding and passing value judgements on actions accurately is, in my opinion, central to being a good admin. My adjenda is to gain additional information about an incident that MONGO neglected to discuss in the standard questions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to hope that MONGO has learned from (one of) the long conflicts he was an instigator of. If answers suggest that behavior was a thing of the past, I might be convinced (similar to Karmafist's support vote). Answers to questions like Hipocrite's might help show this. The fact MONGO has political opinions I disagree with is not at all a problem (many good admins do), it's the fact he used to let those political opinions bias his editing behavior and turn towards belligerence towards disagreeing editors. But as per my oppose vote, I have not had contact with MONGO for several months, so he may have grown out of that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I told myself, I would not argue against oppose votes and am am not going to do so. Lulu and Hypocrite are fully entitled to their right to voice their opinion and from those opinions I can only learn the best way for me to contribute to Misplaced Pages in the most pro-active manner possible. I need to clarify that I do not consider myself to be a "right-winger" but I altogether understand why many others may see it that way, especially if they come from outside the U.S. where politics, especially lately, have been less conservative. I was a later arrival to the WikiProject for Decency and was surprised to see that other members had been tagging articles and images with a "decency" tag...something I openly stated that I was opposed to doing. I clearly stated that I wanted to both change the scope and direction of the project and as soon as the Vfd for the project ended with "no concensus" I commenced altering the scope of the project , I then changed the title to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit . I had hoped, using a basis of a few of the aspects of the original decency project, to develop more of a think tank or discussion group which could iron out the best path to continue to ensure that Misplaced Pages would become, or at least would develop into, the most reliable web based encyclopedia there is. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was initially in support of my title change and attempts to redirect the focus of the project. There was an argument between numerous editors what this new scope should be and over who should remain as members in light of the fact that the project had changed, both in title and direction and some of the previous members had signed on in what appeared to be, from my vantage point, an attempt to play spoiler. I did remove a few names from the members list, yet stopped doing so when asked by one member. I was removed by unknown editors too , . I think that Lulu and I both withdrew from the "battle" because we are both mature enough to know when to stop and when to recognize when a project is essentially dead. My last edit was to try once again to take the project in the direction it needed to go, but I believe that there already is a similar area which is more in keeping with my sentiments anyway, without the controversies! I think that a few users here deserved an answer regarding these issues but continue to urge all those who vote to do so based on their true sentiments so that if this nomination fails, I can learn from it and become a better contributor.--MONGO 19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
This non-answer did not address my concerns. "You have violated your administrative powers with this protection of the wrong version" was said in all seriousness by MONGO. You didn't stop because someone asked you to -> you stopped because the page got protected. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I was asked by Zoe to stop removing names from the project membership and explained why I was removing names to her here. She reverted my removal just prior to her warning to me. I did not remove anyone's name after she did her revert. However, you removed Noitall and then another user were then reverted by Noitall and then Noitall struck your name out you then reverted him and it was after this edit war you were engaged in with Noitall that Radiant! then protected the page . No doubt I was combative, and I was wrong for being so. I argued with Zoe about the purpose of her membership, but did not remove her name or anyone else's after she asked me to stop. The page protection was 4 days after I last removed anyone's name and was after you and Noitall were edit warring over the issue. I am disappointed that I have been accused of sockpuppet use to avoid 3RR and that you have wrongfully stated that I only stopped removing names because of the page protection. I stopped because Zoe asked me to do so. Please provide proof to the contrary.--MONGO 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Requests for adminship/Hipocrite is a redlink. You were told to stop removing names here. The page was protected to stop you and a bunch of anonymous IPs from removing names here. I did not remove noitall, as a reading of my diff would make clear.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I did remove names 7 hours prior to the page being protected at that time. In the meantime, you and Lulu were combating an anon or series of anons and then the page was protected, more than 10 edits later, none of which were mine. I stated above that you had removed Noitall, what I meant was that you removed his comment. After only a three hour page protection, the page was unprotected and that is when an anon removed my name twice as I mentioned above. I do not know what your redlined link Requests for adminship/Hipocrite is in reference to. I thought we had buried the hatchet and I do not understand how I can better answer your questions. I am disappointed that you are still angry with me about this as that is the last thing I would want. As I stated, I was wrong to remove names from the project and I am sorry I was rude to you and the others I offended with this action.--MONGO 15:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)