Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:35, 19 January 2008

MONGO

Voice your opinion (talk page) (46/34/6); 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

• 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)

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, I should probbaly look at the history next time. 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)
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)

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)

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)

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

21. Oppose This user is not sufficiently inclined to AGF.Edivorce (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose, completely unsuited to adminship. Everyking (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose, per Alison. This user has become addicted to wikidrama; giving him the tools back would be a serious mistake. --John (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
24. 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)
25. 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)

26. 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)
27. 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)
28. 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)
29. 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)
30. Oppose, sorry but this is bound to cause more drama. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
31. 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)
32. 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)
33. 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)
34. 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)

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)

6. Neutral. I'm in the same stance as EconomicsGuy. bibliomaniac15 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)