User talk:MONGO - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Junglecat (talk | contribs) at 04:54, 17 November 2007 (→Proposal: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:54, 17 November 2007 by Junglecat (talk | contribs) (→Proposal: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Cowstar

Thanks for that, first decent chuckle I've had out of Misplaced Pages all week. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure.--MONGO 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny to see a bot warn you for not signing the adminship question :-) Nyttend 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:22, 11/4/2007

GlassCobra's RfA

		My RFA
		Hey MONGO! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any backup or second opinions! GlassCobra 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 05:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Henrik's RfA thanks!

Thanks for supporting my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. henrik•talk 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you bunches!

Thank you so much for suppporting my RfA. I was promoted with a total of (44/1/0) - a vote of confidence from the community that I find humbling and motivating. I will not abuse your trust. Look forward to working with you! (Esprit15d 21:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your support.

I've seen you around, and I think you're definitely a "takes a lickin', keeps on tickin'" type. I appreciate your support a lot in light of the weirdness.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November?
Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007.
It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: "troll elsewhere"

I guess our help is not needed! This place is not getting less strange... El_C 09:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been numerous accusations, so perhaps she felt it is better to ignore that dribble and not feed it by "covering it up" with a revert. I hadn't noticed at first when I removed it that she had previously restored it.--MONGO 15:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of conspiracy theory info

Hello. I was wondering if you could mosey on by Oklahoma City bombing and offer some of your thoughts on Talk:Oklahoma City bombing#Air Force report. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting situation on my talk page

Hi there, could you take a look at this? This - User_talk:TimVickers#NPA in reply to a civility warning for this edit summary. Do you think I should just let this go as resolved, or is this guy's attitude too much of a problem? Tim Vickers 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, dealt with. I only have so much patience with people like that. Tim Vickers 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnited 04:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Neranei 2

Hello, are you aware you voted twice? Was it a mistake or something? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops.--MONGO 08:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No one expects a Pigman admin!

		Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
		My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Misplaced Pages for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Misplaced Pages, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Misplaced Pages, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Misplaced Pages to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigman/trail 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

Zeitgeist (video)

A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA edits

Can I ask why you arbitrarily post the same question on all the RFAs? It seems a lot like badgering esp what happened with the whole Jimbo/Zscount370 incident. Just curious. --User:Charitwo/Sig 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That is why I post those questions..there is nothing badgering about asking people if they understand the policy...it also helps me determine the potential they have for wheel warring.--MONGO 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some thankyou spam

Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ioeth question

Thanks for the question! I just wanted to let you know that I responded to it. Cheers! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

its your fault, dude

I'm going to admit this now, least it comes back to haunt me at arb. Ceoil 08:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh?--MONGO 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest MONGO,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your consideration and support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Belated thanks.

Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 13:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

my RFA

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

More RfA shout outs

Hey Mongo, thank you so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 23:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam

Thank you...

...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me.

Thank you again and, best regards,
Neranei
This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Sorry

Your note on my talk page has merit, and I'm sorry for any upset those posts caused. I edited them yesterday, but having been encouraged by an editor I respect to reflect, I feel a further apology is necessary. It should be extended to all parties, who I hope will be aware of it here, without dragging it back out onto any more pages.

Sorry. Privatemusings 00:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a hello

Well, hey there, Mongo; but how does that song go? "The Wild Women of Wongo"? Do you play the bongo? Catch up with you sometime. PS- Cool user page. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not heard that one.--MONGO 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

MONGO, I have a proposal, regarding the harassment links. If you see anybody adding a link to any "attack site", tell me about it, and I will personally remove the link, and block the person if they restore it. I will do it without appealing to any kind of misguided "BADSITES" policy, and I will demonstrate that our current policies are perfectly adequate to dealing with harassment, when they're applied with professionalism.

What do you thihk? The worst I can do is fail to live up to my word, and then we'll be right back where we are now. On the other hand, you might find out how effective we can be when we handle these situations right, and not wrong. Why not give it a try? -GTBacchus 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you guys are so opposed to having that in policy? This isn't about badsites...it is about websites that make it a habit of attack our contributors...we all know what these websites are and I know who are the participants in those sites....so it certainly is a disgusting COI when partiticipants in those websites try and argue against not being able to link to them...I think arbcom would agree with that.--MONGO 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason, and I've told it to you dozens of times. I oppose advertising the existence of these sites. I oppose BEANS. I oppose the policy that you're trying to shoehorn into WP:NPA because I think it's misguided, and every time I've told you this, you've responded with the equivalent of "LA, LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" When will you stop mischaracterizing my arguments? When? I have NEVER, no will I EVER, argue against not being able to link to attack sites. NEVER, get it?

Now, is there a reason that you think other policies are not adequate to handling the situation? Is there a reason you didn't respond to my proposal? Is there a reason you ignore most of what I say? -GTBacchus 04:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In which case its disgusting COI for you to try and argue for its inclusion when you claim to have been harrased by members of those websites. It goes both ways MONGO. All in all this latest edit war and the resulting talk page participation (which should have happened before you added something you knew did not have consensus) has simply reaffirmed that there is no consensus to include that section in that policy. It also reaffirmed that you cannot participate in discussions about that subject without continually attacking other editors. Viridae 04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's getting hard to tell the pots from the kettles here. - Crockspot 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot can you please restrict yourself to helpful comments. I would like to see which part of that was a personal attack? Calling someone out on attacking other people is not a personal attack when it can be substantiated (and already has been by someone else who has warned mongo about it already). Viridae 04:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was referring more to the COI aspect. Being the victim of a nine-page bash fest on a site that you frequent makes me feel oh so warm and fuzzy. - Crockspot 04:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You just did, above. Anyway...point is...you are a contributor to WR, correct? Yet you argue against baning linking to that website...correct? Yet you think that I also have a COI because I argue against linking to the kind of harassment that I had to endure? I fight to protect our contributors and you are fighting for the right to be able to lin to harassment...please correct me if I am mistaken.--MONGO 04:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I contribute to WR. I do not support attacks and I am not disagreeing with your insertion on the basis that I want to link to WR (no matter how many times you claim that about dan, and I it won't change it) I disagree with that section because it has been used to 1. suppress valid criticism 2. remove perfectly valid links. It may also be used to justify blocking a contributor who is not making an attack but is simply linking to a site regarded as an attack site for another reason. I do not agree that I have a COI, because I am not fighting to link to WR, I dislike this policy addition for a different reason. However, if you are going to dismiss my opinions on the basis that you think I have a COI when I do not, you had better stop editing the subject yourself, because although you assert without proof that I have a COI, there is proof of yours. Viridae 04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OH...hahahahaha! I don't participant in a website that is a capricious pile of shit like WR...you do! Yet you oppose banning links to it...okay...well, shucks golly gee...surely that's not a COI...surely.--MONGO 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(after three edit conflicts and a database lock) Hang on, first let's calm down and remember that we're all on the same side here, trying to do what is best for Misplaced Pages. Second, let's not generalize COI to the point where it has no meaning. Almost every Misplaced Pages admin had been attacked by at least one of the sites in question, WP:COI is about editing article space. Now, to address Mongo's question about why people don't want the text in NPA, the concern by those who don't want it in is that there may be circumstances where a link to something like Misplaced Pages Review might be ok or useful. And no one wants a repeat of something like the Making Lights fiasco. Since current policies are enough to deal with the cases when the links are being added to harass people, people are worried that the only thing gained by adding the section is a backdoor to more BADSITES type approaches. JoshuaZ 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...well, I disagree with that. Since WR is full of shit...yes, full of shit...then we shovel that shit out the door. IF a link was ever needed, then it could be emailed to arbcom...simple.--MONGO 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You disagree with which part? Note that there were a number of points above (I assume that you didn't disagree with for example my assertion that we're all on the same side). Now, assuming from your comment that you are referring solely to the comment about Misplaced Pages Review, I agree that the set of circumstances where a link would be useful is narrow. But they can occur, and the ArbCom deals with arbitration cases, it is not the ArbCom's job to look at every single link and then decide how and whether to disseminate it in a discussion. And if you want examples of where it might be legitimate to link to WR I can easily supply them- say for example, a thread there discusses a plan to disrupt Misplaced Pages, or someone wishes to point out that a closing admin made a comment on WR that indicated they had strong bias in the outcome of a deletion discussion (something like this did actually happen before, I don't unfortunately remember all the details. And WR isn't the only site, would for example Making Lights be unacceptable with this? What about Rob Balder's blog where he said nasty stuff about us? You see, it is hard to see where this stops. And of course, none of this deals with the other point, that the genuine harassment can be dealt with anyways. JoshuaZ 04:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also the BEANS argument, as the current (protected) text of NPA is an advertisement for attack sites. If that provision stays in policy, it will be a small victory for the trolls, and it will set a terrible precedent for other mistakes like it. -GTBacchus 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In your haste to assume bad faith..I expect any of you to show me where I mentioned a "website" in my new wordng about external links.....look at my contribution to the NPA policy again...

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is not to be tolerated. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate criticism. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for banning.

--MONGO 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so are you saying that under this proposal it wouldn't apply to websites as a whole but only the specific pages that have the problematic material? JoshuaZ 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup....--MONGO 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we are getting somewhere. At some level this is a good sign, but at another level, it leaves me even more confused. Since we can remove links that are clear attempts to harass and insult anyways, what does this add? It maybe had some policy result when it made the website as a whole forbidden, but if it is just the page itself, what is this adding beyond what we would already do? JoshuaZ 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, it adds an exclusion for legitimate criticism, which is not covered earlier in the policy. - Crockspot 04:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Um again, but we wouldn't have removed the links if they legitimate criticism earlier. If this merely means that we remove links that are placed as an attempt to harass then we do that anyways. If it means something more, then what other links are going to get removed? JoshuaZ 04:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't we have? Without some sort of qualification that legitimate criticism is acceptable, any criticism off wiki could be construed as an attack, and removable, by the letter of the policy. - Crockspot 05:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there something in current policy that makes you think that we would remove links to criticism we thought was legitimate? JoshuaZ 05:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I'm not sure MONGO's looking to remove any links that we wouldn't already remove. I don't think that's what this is about for him. I think this dispute has come to represent, for some people, whether or not Misplaced Pages is willing to make a statement of solidarity and support for people who have been harassed by certain individuals on certain websites. For others, I suspect it's a quixotic exercise in trying to lawyer against the inevitable.

MONGO, you're right that I assumed you were advocating a site-ban. I apologize for my assumption of bad judgment; I've always been pretty certain of your good faith. -GTBacchus 05:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lawyer against the inevitable? Viridae 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I may be wrong about that, and I'm not suspecting any particular individual. I hope I'm wrong. However, if anybody in the discussion thinks that the exclusion of the paragraph in question creates a loophole for them to engage in anything shady, then they're mistaken, that's all. -GTBacchus 05:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think that none of those people who are supporting its removal are doing so because they want to use links to attack people (something they wouldnt get away with anyway). Viridae 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are those who would disagree with you, perhaps on both of those points. Doesn't the truth usually lie somewhere in between? -GTBacchus 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry to point this out, MONGO, but it was pretty clear that someone who fervently agreed with this addition, Crum375, thought it would ban links to "attack sites." You are usually a good enough writer that such a misunderstanding would be extremely unlikely. If someone has to read a policy section several times over to understand it, then it needs to be rewritten. How about adding "Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor" to the list of things that are never acceptable? Oh wait.... Risker 05:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Crum375 and I agree that we need never link to such sites...however, my wording was a compromise solution...perhaps it can be reworded better, maybe to make it less threatening, but again, I think it is important, especially as time goes by, that when someone later on, a newbie perhaps, comes along and inserts a link to a page that is harassing our contributors, that we can have this small detail emphasized so that we can point to it and tell them..."no...that is against our policies...for more information, see the policy here"--MONGO 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"sites" and "pages" are not interchangeable terms. Question: If http://www.example.com/?thread=1234 contains legitimate criticism (and, to keep it simple, suppose it is not disputed that the content of that specific page is legitimate criticism) and http://www.example.com/?thread=4321 contains harassment, is it permissible to link http://www.example.com/?thread=1234 ? That is the key difference between "sites" and "pages", yet you appear to be using the two terms interchangeably in your comments. ?thread=1234 is a page that is legitimate criticism, but it is on a site that contains harassment. Could you clarify what you mean? —Random832 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No links to harassment--MONGO (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading through this thread, I am thinking - "OK, what is so hard to understand here?" Seriously, protecting our editors is first priority, and needs to be the main focus. Is Misplaced Pages so desperate for information that we need questionable links?? I haven't followed the whole story behind this other than what I have spotted on some pages, so forgive me if I seem somewhat ignorant on this (my schedule in real life is tough enough). You can always go back and revert something back in from the edit history on Misplaced Pages. However, you cannot go back and retrieve a good editor who left the project forever because of unabated harassment. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the editors our first priority, or is the encyclopedia our first priority? The answer can't change depending on the context, and in other cases, it seems to be pretty clear that people think it's the encyclopedia. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Without good editors, you don't have an encyclopedia. Yep - That's it. It's all about who is building and maintaining it. Without good editors, it will fall apart. It will become a soapbox, a place of original research, etc. In other words, unworthy of the title "encyclopedia". JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Spebi's RfA question

I have responded to your question on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Spebi – hope I have satisfied you in my answer :) Spebi 04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Howdy MONGO, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby 11:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)