User talk:MONGO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Image:NotSuckBanner.jpg

Archive
Archives

Archive 1 (January 2005 to June 2005)
Archive 2 (July 2005 to October 2005)
Archive 3 (November 2005)
Archive 4 (December 2005)
Archive 5 (January 2006)
Archive 6 (February 2006)
Archive 7 (March 2006)
Archive 8 (April 2006)
Archive 9 (May 2006)
Archive 10 (June 2006)
Archive 11 (July/August 2006)
Archive 12 (September 2006)
Archive 13 (October 2006)
Archive 14 (November 2006)

Contents

Notes

Cplot CamperStrike

UPS

Do you know for sure that that is real and not a hoax? —Doug Bell talk 10:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To remove all the other info, I cut and pasted the vital part into the email...it's a fact.--MONGO 10:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. A little Christmas cheer perhaps. :-( —Doug Bell talk 10:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Nah...I just learned it was a joke...guess I should follow up on this issue better...sorry.--MONGO 10:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought you to be more of a skeptic than to get fooled by a standard Internet joke. It sure read like one.  :-) —Doug Bell talk 10:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but the person who sent it to me, never jokes...and is an executive series (ES) level emloyee...he also sent it to about 100 other people...probably trying to see how many of them called his bluff...I guess I failed his test!--MONGO 10:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I wonder how long until someone else sends it to me that's less connected than you are. I'm sure it's out there now. —Doug Bell talk 10:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My connections these days are only via email...frankly, I am suprised he still had my address since I no longer work for them. I guess he just hit send all. But, I did call his hoax by sending him the link to the website I have also emailed you which was sent to me by User:Wsiegmund.--MONGO 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It may be unwitting. Sometimes worms and viruses forge "from" addresses or possibly his machine is infected. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL, seems about right. Taking your orders from email? How much do they pay?—Slipgrid 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

CamperStrike

You should read what CamperStrike wrote in my talk after I pointed out he removed the Human History section in Yellowstone. This guy is nothing but trouble. I wish he could be removed from the site completely. And the fact he doesn't always use his name doesn't help his case. Phaldo 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusations

originally posted on User talk:Travb

I want you to explain how my question on User:CamperStrike's talk page is a violation of WP:NPA.[1] Four other editors have now discussed this editors actions with me and they have all stated that they find him to be disruptive. The edit I cited that he did clearly shows that he completely removed an entire section froma featured article, and then mispelled a number of words deliberately. PLease respond here, as I have your page watchlisted.--MONGO 06:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit he perfomed[2]--MONGO 06:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello MONGO, The answer to the question is found here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#WP:BITE
Thank you, have a good night.
Please keep in mind CamperStrike has less than 1000 edits.
I still await the answer to my questions:
  1. Why did you break: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used.
  2. And what evidence do you have that I am committing revenge? Revenge for what? Travb (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Travb. I have not broken the blocking policy...see my evidence about your behavior at Travb seeking revenge.
I posted plenty of evidence that you are seeking revenge, including your own words at Travb seeking revenge.--MONGO 07:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Soda Springs, ID

Soda Springs, ID is a very small town in the southeast area of Idaho. I passed through it on my way to Jackson, Grand Teton, and Yellowstone this past spring, coming up from Salt Lake City. I wasn't impressed as I thought I'd be with the town, but any time I travel, regardless of venue I find enjoyment out of what I see. It wasn't bad, I just think it was way over hyped for what it was. The geyser you saw in my photo is a time controlled geyser that goes off every hour (that's what the little house next to it is). It's not a town I would visit unless it's on your way. The whole idea of soda springs is that there are a lot of bubbling geysers, thus lots of carbon in the water, and thus the water is like club soda if you were to drink it. Though, never drink that water, it was dirty and who knows what bacteria live in that water. Here's another picture from Soda Springs I took. Although, if any good came out of Soda Springs, I was able to expand that article with a picture :). It was interesting, I actually took some pictures out west on that trip with Wikipedia in mind. One last thing since you've been in that area, regarding this picture, using my GPS I noticed this sign was about a quarter mile to the south than where it should be... Phaldo 16:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes...that 45th parallel sign is inbetween Gardiner MT and Mammoth Hot Springs. I worked for years for the NPS, and my guess is if we contacted them and told them that their sign is in the wrong location, they would do, well, nothing! This is the location where the sign should be. I know I have heard of Soda Springs, but I guess I just didn't over to that section of Idaho as much as I would have liked, spending most of my time on the east side of the Tetons, up in the Yellowstone park region and northwest of there where I spent my childhood in Missoula.--MONGO 18:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef-block

No apology needed. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 21:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

seen your new subpage?

User:MONGO/NewPolicy. Yeah, you might wanna delete that. --tjstrf talk 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It does finally explain what Category:USEBACA is, though. --tjstrf talk 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If you follow some of the troll's edits, you'll see it means United States Executive Branch Agent Controlled Articles. See this as an example. And I thought I worked for United Network Command for Law and Enforcement. And now, the official Wikipedia/CIA working policy. Morton devonshire 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha oh wow. Does conspiracy guy actually think that or is he just trying to be funny? --tjstrf talk 23:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have all the diffs at my fingertips, because the troll keeps creating new usernames, but yes, he's dead serious. See this as an example. Morton devonshire 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"Individualist Spiritualist Anarchist Barbie"? This just keeps getting better and better. You'd think he'd be bored by now, but I guess not. --tjstrf talk 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thtat's the second time the page has been created. It is sitting somewhere on Wiki or on another wiki and copied and pasted here.--MONGO 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first. As I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

Trolls need to eat too

-)

I probably would have less patience if I'd had all of the experiences you've had here, but I will always start by assuming good faith. At least I should get points for not falling for any of it. —Doug Bell talk 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know you knew what you were dealing with...just providing the best summary one can.--MONGO 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

National Historic Trails :: Protected Areas WikiProject

OCTA-Trails partners with U.S. Department of Interior agencies like the National Park Service. In supporting National Trails programs, OCTA Chapters sponsor and support projects that preserve and protect wilderness viewsheds along the same corridors used by pioneering emigrant wagon trainsgeoWIZard-Passports 08:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, I wasn't aware of that, so sorry for the reverts before.--MONGO 08:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Pierce (second nomination)

Hi Mongo. I notice that the known troll in this discussion that you removed the link to Mr. Pierce's old resume from reverted your edit [3]. I reverted back, but as typical with these things, this might go on and on. --Oakshade 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Once the Afd is concluded, maybe we can ask oversight to have the edit striken, since we can then protect the Afd, which we can't do while it is still being discussed.--MONGO 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Doubletree Hotel Video Release

Hi Mongo, a while back I wrote you regarding the release of the security camera videos showing Flight 77. You wrote that to source Flight77.info, we had to cite reliable reports. For the new Doubltree Hotel video release, I've cited the AP, CNN and wrote about this part of the story here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_77#Doubletree_video_release

Could we update the article regarding the Doubletree release?

Thank you, --Jimwilson

Withdrawal

That is unfortunate. I feel strongly that too much time on Wikipedia is wasted on the impression of civility and the enforcement of status quo rather than cleaning up the negative inertia generated by a few malcontents and I think you would have been a good influence. (sigh) Just know that some reasonable people don't think you're a banhappy mouth-frothing zealot. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC), who still can't believe idjits bring up tired old wikitruth lies in an arbcom election.

Some of those who offered supports made good observations. You have been through some challenges that gives you the understanding of what real trouble from some can be. You would have done well as an mediator. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's any consolation to you, the hammering that Faafafooey will take when he goes RfA will make your hammering look like a lovefest. :) - Crockspot 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on his block log, it will probably be about the same as what Striver got when he ran for admin.--MONGO 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross posted from User talk:KillerChihuahua:

This is a pity. I feel strongly that had those who oppose investigated more deeply, they would have found that in those controversial cases, you were pitted against Trolls and POV Warriors who would have done considerable damage had you not held fast. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly! AnnH ♫ 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
And mine, as well. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

End cross posted content

Adding another "amen" to that. I don't think I've ever seen such an appalling campaign of harassment mounted against another editor. Keep up the good work. Antandrus (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the harassment I deal with all the time would have possibly been a disruptive adition to arbcom proceedings. Had I been above 70%, I would have continued my quest, but I definitely feel that I might be more effective in helping myself and others defeat harassment if I am not an arbitrator. Kind of goes along with my 20 something years of law enforcement/investigations/security work...I do better at apprehending perhaps, than I do at judging. Your kind words here are deeply appreciated...thanks!--MONGO 21:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi MONGO, I don't know you very well, but you were the first to help me with wikistuff and I've seen and appreciated your work on our common interests and your advice to me. As those above say, keep up the good work. Cheers --Geologyguy 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I intend to return to the Yellowstone and related articles in the near future. If you need anything, don't hesitate to ask.--MONGO 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you withdraw from the election. Guettarda 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated and thanks.--MONGO 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A pity, sorry to see you go out. Probably less stressful out of it! Giano 23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to add my consolations as well. I've been exposed to just a small fraction of your problems through this Cplot mess, and it's driving me insane when I'm not even the one being attacked. That you even stay around here and aren't banned speaks wonders about your dedication and relatively cool head. Given the number of attacks you end up on the bad end of, I think your civility is commendable. --tjstrf talk 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page. More generally, I agree with all the above sentiments. Metamagician3000 00:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That really is a shame. I would have thought people would be willing to support one with a good strong streak of common sense rather than, as Elara calls it, an ability to enforce the status quo. The fact that you're here, despite all you've been through, should be enough to show your dedication to the project. This all comes from someone who is relatively unaware of the situation, and completely unacquainted with you, and still manages to feel angry about it. I hope this doesn't discourage you too much - keep up your excellent work in other areas! Cheers, riana_dzasta 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posted from User talk:Doug Bell:

I am sorry to hear you've withdrawn, although I did have a certain affinity for the oppose reasoning from Tbeatty's initial oppose. It may be that you can do more good as an admin than as an arbitrator. —Doug Bell talk 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

End cross posted content

This is a sad day indeed. However, do take heart that your vandal-, troll-, and conspiracy-whacking stick(s?) is and always has been appreciated, and your efforts to maintain rationality within Wikipedia have not gone unnoticed by many. While conflict brings controversy, rejection need not imply resentment. --210physicq (c) 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just recently saw your bid for Arbcom, don't let it get to you. Just keep up the good work that we all know you for and I'm sure you'll reach your goal. --kizzle 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much to all who have taken their time to be so kind...this is an inspiration to me and further motivation to try and do better here on Wikipedia.--MONGO 04:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So many jobs to do. Perhaps it's better to have you available to whack-a-troll when they pop up. Relentless job and takes nerves of absolute steel. If you ever need help ganging up on troll-cats, you know what to do. (Damn, I hadn't even had a chance to express an opinion yet.) Peace and love. BusterD 22:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly an energetic admin and a prolific editor and article writer. There's lots of good you can do in those capacities. There's many a hoax to be put right. Best wishes. Edison 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Add Doubletree Video?

Hi Mongo,

Thanks for updating the F77 article. I'm wondering if a link to the actual video can be posted... Links to Judicial Watch's three Youtube URLs are there. Should I create a separate Youtube account that doesn't reference Flight77.info in any way? I can even take the logo off the video if that would help. The intent is not to take credit, but rather to complete the record.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

--Jimwilson

I just added it...the link you gave is fine.--MONGO 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Cplot Sock

To block --Novus Ordo Seculorum. Typical "clowns" stuff. Morton devonshire 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

But what about personal disputes?

Mongo, slow down a second. You just said you had been hurt by a remark of mine. I offered my hospitality in user space so as to keep it out of article space. You then tell me to keep content disputes in the article space. Are your reading my comments?--Thomas Basboll 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but let's discuss the issues of the content for now...I was only reminding you to argue about the message and not the messenger...thanks.--MONGO 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me know when you want to talk about those insults.--Thomas Basboll 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I will.--MONGO 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long

I'm already immersed in a minor controversy surround my closing of a monster AfD. See, this is all your fault for nominating me. :-P —Doug Bell talk 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just step back now and if gets undeleted, don't worry about it. There may be a number of folks that will make accusatory statements regarding your deletion, so just try and restrain from responding.--MONGO 21:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably I will. That's my plan at least. I have no stake in the articles, so my only reason to respond is to defend my actions, not the articles. —Doug Bell talk 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Judging from the DRV comments I seemed to have managed to stop a speeding trainwreck without suffering any damage. It was probably helped by the fact that while I was doing the closing I was wondering if this was going to be a quick end to my adminship—a little paranoia helps keep the mind sharp sometimes. This is even more fun than my RfA was, so I take it all back. Thanks for the nomination...this admin stuff could turn out to be a blast! —Doug Bell talk 10:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah...you have to really mess up to be deadminned around here...like protecting pages you aren't involved in an editing conflict on, or blocking someone who is a disruption or haraassing you, or blocking someone and then having action taken on you for that six months later. Closing out a big Afd like you did so early in your adminship and having the bulk of the community support your action at DRV is a good omen.--MONGO 10:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Nebraska

Someone (not me!) started WikiProject Nebraska. I thought you may be interested in participating. – Swid (talk | edits) 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I see...I probably will...thanks!--MONGO 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi

Hi MONGO. Hope you are fine. Here, just wanted to give you a link. No, it's not to provoke, its just FYI: [4][5]. No need to answer back, peace. --Striver 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess there's a reason they are actors and not engineers. --Tbeatty 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::I think I need to send my fellow Montanan (David Lynch) an email and remind him that there were hundreds of plane parts all over the Pentagon lawn, virtually all the DNA from that crash scene was recovered and cross referenced to be the people on the plane. I don't think that Bernard Brown, the father of Bernard Curtis Brown II, who was on Flight 77 when it hit the Pentagon [6] would be very happy to hear someone spread lies about what happened to his deceased son. Bernard Brown Sr, was a Chief Petty Officer and worked at the Pentagon, but he wasn't at work when his son died as he was a Golf outing with coworkers. Some time before his son was to leave on his trip to go to California on an ecological field trip, Bernard Brown had to comfort his son who was very scared of flying...according to an NBC interview, Brown stated: "To be honest," Brown told NBC, "we talked about death. And I just told him, 'Don't be afraid. … Just listen to what the people tell you, and the instructions. You'll be all right; you'll be fine.' He said, 'Daddy, I’m scared,' and I said, 'Hey, don't be scared; don't be afraid to die. Because we are all going to die someday."[7]. --MONGO 05:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i understand, ill give you no more messages. One thing made me curious. "virtually all the DNA from that crash scene was recovered and cross referenced to be the people on the plane". I was under the impression that was not done. Do you care to give me references for that? Thanks. I wont bother you again with messages like that. --Striver 13:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's one...there are many others...I'll look for more later."At the Pentagon, military medical examiners linked remains to 179 victims, including passengers aboard American Airlines Flight 77 and people working in the facility."[8]
    • "In the Pentagon and Pennsylvania cases, nine genetic profiles that matched no known victims were presumed to be hijacker remains, Smith says."[9]. Interesting, this contradicts other things i have heard before. I would appreciate more info in this regard. Thanks for the link --Striver 12:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll have to look through my Forensic Medicine magazines and other places for more info. The information regarding this issue is also available via the U.S. Government...I believe all the DNA remains were analyized at Dover Air Force Base in Dover, Delaware.--MONGO 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... i see that you are leaving. I know the feeling, i did that. It only lasted for... was it two weeks? Anyhow, i know the feeling of having enough, and even though we are at the opposite sides regarding most issues, i sympathies with you on a human scale. Peace and blessings.--Striver 18:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keltik31 RfC

Hello! You might want to have a gander here and here. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodlief is sitting out a 48 hour block[10]--MONGO 10:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth

MONGO, for what it's worth, I do think it would be prudent if you let other admins defend you from the ED harassment campaign. I don't deny that it exists or that you deserve to be defended, but since you're right in the middle of it, it's probably best to let other people make the calls. TheronJ 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They move too quick...sometimes creating multiple accounts before I could even get it to AN/I...I have asked for others to help me in the past and it is sometimes hours or never before I get a response, and I can either deal with them myself, or walk away from Wikipedia, which is their goal anyway. The latter allows them to knock me off the website.--MONGO 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As much as you might want them in gaol, I'll assume that's just a typo. :) Newyorkbrad 17:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yah, I was coming back to fix my typos and edit conflcited with your edit...sorry about the misspellings.--MONGO 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
ED? Qu'est-ce que c'est ED? I can't find anything on Wikipedia on "ED" except erectile dysfunction, eating disorder or European Democrats that might apply here. --Roger Williams 16:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling wins

Had enough...goodbye to this place.--MONGO 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's sad to see a longtime contributor leave, and especially for such a reason as this; I hope you'll reconsider and be back soon. Newyorkbrad 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
First the Iraqi Surrendermonkey Group, now MONGO? This is a bad omen. Hope you reconsider. Crockspot 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Completely understandable and highly regrettable. This is indeed a black day for Wikipedia. —Doug Bell talk 17:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
What about a short wikibreak? -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 17:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. This sucks. I'm really sad to see you go. I hope you reconsider, but if not thank you for all the wonderful things you have done for Wikipedia, all the great article and all the hard work. It's appreciated very much. Guettarda 17:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is bad. MONGO, please reconsider and take a short Wikibreak. Your contributions to this project are still needed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Your contributions to the project have been hugely valuable, and I for one appreciate them far more than you will ever know. Please consider taking a break and returning; it's hard dealing with trolls and harassment all the time, especially in a volunteer project where the benefits can seem so intangible, and compliments and thank-yous are rare commodities indeed. Take care, Antandrus (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving only hands the trolls their victory. Don't give them the satisfaction, just take a short break then come back and participate a different level. Remember, he who remains the most detached while making his case often wins, so don't let yourself become caught up. But if you do decide to not come back, I'm very sorry to see you go and apologize for not providing more support; you've been a genuine asset to the project. FeloniousMonk 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go, MONGO, and hope you reconsider. TheronJ 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No no no, MONGO. Take a break, yes. Then come back. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that if you created User:MONGO/Trollspotting (maybe worded more neutrally) and posted IDs there of new ED and Truther trolls, you could get watchlisted 24/7 coverage easily. Thatcher131 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this come about... please, as the above users have said, take some time off, smell the flowers (or the Christmas cookies) and come back fresh. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck in your future endeavors, and I respect your decision to quit. I've thought about doing the same thing on several occasions. --Cyde Weys 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry to see this. I hope that you return after taking a reasonable sanity break. Georgewilliamherbert 19:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Boo. :( Syrthiss 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling DOES NOT win. MONGO, all of us get stressed from time to time. Sometimes, it helps to take a step back and walk away for a few weeks. I'll expect you back in a few short weeks. If you don't show up, I'll have to figure out some way to troll you :) Please, don't stay away forever. You're too valuable! --Durin 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, leaving the project without permission is considered unacceptable. If you continue in this manner you may be pestered by email until the end of time. Please stop, and consider staying and improving the work of others. Thank you. --Guinnog 20:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah. What Guinnog said! :) --Durin 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(mutters angrily) Coming off a block for incivility, there's no possible way I can say what I feel onwiki, so I'll email you , MONGO. But you're needed here. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey maybe you can CC me...I need your blunt perspective on this. I've been missing your comments during the block. :-) —Doug Bell talk 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this sucks... How about you just make a new account, start fresh, and not tell us who it is? (Or is that what you're doing already and this is how you're covering it?) --tjstrf talk 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Adding additional comments; MONGO, you're a particular type of admin that is rare around here. We need all types of admins, but many of the other types have plenty of people filling those roles. A role I see you filling is one where you know what the policies are, you know what the guidelines are, and you're quite willing to walk right into the ground zero for the vandals/trolls and say "No, this is wrong." and boldly revert it. You tread where others fear to go. We need you in that role. There's too few people in that role. Yes, this means you're going to be the subject of some pretty hateful stuff from some editors here who need to learn better behaviors. Yes, this means you've got to have skin as thick as an elephant, and a memory for hate attacks against you of a chipmunk. You've been really good at this to date. I was shocked to see you delete your userpage (that's how I found out about this...seeing a redlink for you). But, given how much crap has been flung at you it's hardly surprising you would eventually find it getting to you. That's NO EXCUSE FOR LEAVING! :) Take a break, etc. but don't leave. --Durin 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Endorse this statement. My view exactly. I see nobody here capable of filling your shoes and certainly nobody with the huevos to do it and I fear for the future of the project with that role unfilled. Simply put, we need you. —Doug Bell talk 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take a short break. I can thoroughly understand your wanting to leave, due to the persistant hammering you have taken, but don't let them win. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you have huge respect and support within the community; both as a first class editor, and as brave (and much needed) POVwarrior/troll fighter. I couldn't imagine being able to deal with the crap you've put up with over the last few months, but its a strong testament to your character and ideals that you have. A fact of life is that a % of the population are pricks, and its a shame you've had to deal with so many. Anyway, though you might enjoy this, and hope to see you around again. + Ceoil 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above, take a breath if you must but please come back when you can...this pretty much sucks. I wish I had followed the Arbcom thing closer before this...Rx StrangeLove 22:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I am someone who has clashed with you in the past... frequently. I'd like to see you work you magic here again. What I hope is that you come back with renewed constructive criticism, rather than your usual destructive variety. However I do hope you come back. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Wow. That's a courageous endorsement by Seabhcan of your value here MONGO. —Doug Bell talk 22:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We view you as the embodiment of integrity here. Not only are you an effective admin, but you're a great guy too. Hope you reconsider, MONGO. -- Samir धर्म 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, your contributions to the articles on national parks and other nature-based articles were superb and of tremendous value to Wikipedia. I do feel that your strongly held political beliefs affected your impartiality and your decisions when it came to your administrative duties and your editing of certain highly charged topics, but that's a problem not unique to you. I encourage you to take a break, do some fly fishing, and come back and concentrate on those great national park articles which were your forté. If you decide not to return, thanks for all your hard work, and contributions. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely understandable, but we all really hope you reconsider. Your work here is valued and appreciated by many, and your integrity and forthrightness are admired. Take your time, but please do consider returning. riana_dzasta 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this page if you ever feel like you need a reason to come back. riana_dzasta 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please return soon whenever you are ready. I hope a majority of ArbCom does not take the road of the extreme sanction, it would be a wound to the encyclopedia. :) Cheers, NoSeptember 03:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely please come back. The "start over with a new account" thing could be a good idea if, after a short break, you still don't want your past catching up to you. We're pulling for you. Grandmasterka 07:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with these sentiments, MONGO, and urge you to reconsider your departure. We disagree with respect to my proposal, but I greatly value your contributions to the encyclopedia. Your countless hours here have not been spent in vain: you've done us a lot of good for which I am appreciative. This is the point I was trying to make here: taking away those buttons is in no way passing judgment on their performance as an editor: people who become administrators but are not particularly suited to the role are still almost always prized editors, and would do the community good serving only that role. Hopefully a few days away from the grind will give you some needed refreshment, but it would be a shame to make that permanent. Regretfully, Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO is also particularly well suited to be an admin. I feel sorry for the admin who will have to pick up his role in fighting trolls from ED and working to keep unsourced and ill-conceived conspiracies off the pages of Wikipedia. Some admin will have to take these arrows because it is in the best interest of the project. I only hope they do it with the same fortitude as MONGO. There is no winner with his desysopping. But Wikipedia is the clear loser. Tbeatty 08:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with Tbeatty. To say that to de-sysop him isn't a slap in the face and that everything will be ok is laughable. The project needs admins with the same kind of determination as MONGO. --rogerd 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm agreeing totally with above, and I hope that you come back. Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sad to see you go, MONGO, but such is the way of Wikipedia. I do hope, however, that this is only temporary. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would be a big loss to have MONGO no longer. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hell of a way to end the day, seeing this. I'd kick a dog if we still had one. Crap! I do hope you will consider coming back. -- Donald Albury 04:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

I also feel like leaving because of trolling. Community is practicaly falling apart. Though I also want to discuss the issue with you on IRC. Catch me there. --Cat out 19:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you remember..

I don't know if you remember our association over one of the National Parks articles a while back, MONGO, but I'm very sorry to see you leave. You're a great admin and contributor, I hope you feel able to return to Wikipedia soon. Frutti di Mare 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

/me cries

MONGO, I'm really sad to see you go. You're one of the editors I really respect on the project, and I could have really used your help on national parks and climbing sites. I hope you'll come back, if not for yourself, then for my selfish needs. The project will be the better for it. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bigfootogram

Image:Smalfut.jpg This Bigfootogram has been sent to MONGO by User:Bishzilla.14:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to those who took the time to post comments here.--MONGO 05:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! riana_dzasta 06:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...probably just going to do minor things...not even sure I want to be here at all yet...but all the kind comments were inspirational. Thanks again.--MONGO 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Came out of hiding cause you left and here you are back again. Yell for support. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see you back! Tom Harrison Talk 15:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Me too. --PTR 15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Outstanding! ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see your name in blue again. -- nae'blis 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I was pretty disillusioned when I saw you user page turn red. You have a lot of supporters out here. --rogerd 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words...I'm not about theatrics but my overall interest in contribution is at an all time low, but seeing many supporters here is encouraging.--MONGO 16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because we're happy to see you back. I'm pretty disillusioned myself at times, but I'm not going to let a pack of gibbering halfwits derail my ability to use Wikipedia, or contribute, or fix what's wrong. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC) , Who was about to have a wikibreakdown when she saw MONGO's page go to red
  • Echo what Elaragirl said. MONGO, there's a whole pack of halfwits out there that, because of the outstanding work you do, would love to see your head sewed onto a lemming and watch it go over a cliff. It can be hard at times preventing their hate and vitriol against you getting to you. I run into this myself in other areas, in particular heavy abuse I receive when attempting to manage fair use violations. Regardless, we soldier on with the focus to create a free encyclopedia. You are important and integral to that. Paraphrasing from A Few Good Men, we NEED you on this wall. I found myself beginning to despair in your absence at the Collapse of the World Trade Center with the rampant attempts to remove the term "conspiracy" from what is blatantly a conspiracy because some people don't like the connotation of the word they derive. This is blatant POV attempts on their part, but they keep trying anyways. I'll ship you a few tons of Space Shuttle tiles to withstand the heat. --Durin 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Echo everything your friends have said. Please stay around, if you can, and don't let the trolls win. AnnH ♫ 20:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Barnstar of Defiance
For never bowing to defeat, always doing what's right despite criticism, and defying the trolls, I wish to show my appreciation. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you..but seeing I am to be desyopped for trying to defeat harassment and that if I say the word "nonsense", I can be blocked, I can't see why "laws" need be applied to me that are not applied to others. When one does what they can to defeat harassment in keep with "Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves" [11], they are still penalized, then obviously the arbtration committee is no longer a venue to trust to enforce it's own prior rulings. When arbtration becomes arbitrary, then it no longer functions as it was hopefully intended.--MONGO 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In my eyes, the ArbCom -- and many admins -- are too concerned with the surface appearances of civility, openmindedness, and consensus to take a hard look at what needs to be done to fix things. There are problems with vandals, trolls, and spam. There are tens of thousands of unsourced articles that will never be fixed because Deletion is now evil and if you vote delete too much, you get sent up the river on an RfC by a pack of wolves, or blasted to ArbCom as disruptive. I think that someone has decided that it's easier to allow much of the Wiki that isn't 1.0 to fall to shit, and that people who end up suffering like you can be ..set aside. I can't find any logic in the statement that they made at ArbCom earlier and the current mess that they're doing now, and I have zero faith in ArbCom's ability to be impartial and neutral, based on what I'm seeing. Those ghouls at Wikipedia Review were basically gloating over this, and Wikitruth would have too if they weren't so busy trying to retcon reality into glorifying the desires of some two-bit impostor of Jimbo. (sigh) I'm just...very tired, MONGO. I'm sure you are too. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From my reading of the state of the RfAr it does not appear you are to be desysopped. --Durin 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Distressingly, the vote is currently 5-0-0 desysoping him. However, the tools are irrelevent, and you know this as well as I do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see it now. Good grief. ArbCom's way out in left field on this one, and not a baseball mitt in sight. --Durin 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't care what the ED partisans and the angry folks at WR have to say about me...about all I can do is offer them some cheese to go with their whine. What erks me is I take a case to arbcom to get a resolution that will be binding that was unachievable via Rfc, and an ED partisan uses that case to get retribution for percieved wrongs from a previous case. Show me a perfect admin that has been in the trenches, dealt with the trolling and the harassment on a level equal to mine and then they can voice that I have "abused my admin tools". There never was an expectation that admins be perfect and the "justice" that is supposed to be arbcom is lost in a quagmire of applying policy that is more concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit of it.--MONGO 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's time to start an RfAr on ArbCom. Yes, a joke, but I've lambasted ArbCom before for extremely poor decisions. I grant I do not know all the particulars of this case, but even their final decision voting doesn't make sense. They refuse to agree that you've be uncivil, yet you are to be desysopped for being uncivil? Huh? ArbCom's off base on this one. --Durin 19:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
On a few occasions, when an admin action I did was overturned, rather than wheel war (which I have NEVER done) I loudly objected to their efforts to interfere with my attempts to defeat stalking and harassment. I knew Miltopia was stalking my edits, I pointed that out to the admins who reverted my block...yet I am "bad" because I disagreed with them...what on earth. It's not a matter of if I am an admin or not, the point is, as you have summarized well, this is a free project...we make zero...there have never been expectations that Admins be perfect...so they question my not even substantiated zealousness with a desysopping. In the case of Cplot...I was absolutely restrained. In the case of Miltopia, I didn't wheel war...in fact, though he again stalked my edits after the previous block, I did nothing. IN the case of CamperStrike...I knew he was trolling...but I did nothing...yet I am to be percieved as having no restraint?--MONGO 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspect they are basing this on historical evidence of drama. F.F.McGurk 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure...if you understand by that they mean "MONGO is a target of drama. If we desysop him, we won't have to bother with it as much." I tend to take the darkest and most cynical view, but after looking over all the evidence (what a joke), it's all I can see. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Much like i said, trolling my username may very well be a disruption to the community...maybe better I just vacate the website if that is the case.--MONGO 19:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No clue. Just saw lots of RFCs, two arbcoms, and communications issues from a majority of users, all in 1~ year. Controversial. Community has spoken. Back to work editing; we are here to build an encyclopedia. Buttons are not needed for that. Good luck with your future regular editing, which is the sole reason any of us should be here. Everything else is secondary fluff. F.F.McGurk 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Next time, use your regular account. This isn't about anything other than justice.--MONGO 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
MONGO no like trolling...nor like when folks are cowardly and post insults with a sock account.--MONGO 20:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how you (or anybody else in your shoes) could take a de-sysoping as anything other than a slap in the face for the good work you have done. Yes, if that were to happen, you could still do the work of editing National Parks articles and the other things you enjoy, but any human who, given that kind of sanction who doesn't feel that they deserve if (and your don't) would naturally feel hurt and betrayed. I am very dismayed at the prospect of someone who has put in many hours building and defending this project from trolls is about to get a knife in the back. Maybe they'll de-sysop me for saying that, too. I don't care at this point. --rogerd 22:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're back

MONGO, I'm glad to see you're back. I was sorry when you'd left, because that seemed like such a bad end to the story. I'd much prefer you "win", in the sense of not being harassed anymore. I'd like to offer a suggestion or two about how to more effectively neutralize trolling, because I think you have a tendency to feed them without intending to. I hesitate though, because I don't think you'd be receptive to hearing anything from me, based on what you've said to me in the past: that we have nothing to talk about, that I'm an "ED partisan", etc. It turns out I'm against drama at Wikipedia, because it's unproductive, and that's the spirit in which I'm writing to you now.

I hope you're willing to hear me, because I understand these ED people better than you do, and I have some insights into their side of this conflict, which could be useful to you. Understanding is a good thing, in this context. I've seen you react in precisely the ways they love to laugh at, and pass up the chance to react with just as much integrity, but in a drama-defusing way that would just make a troll get bored and go away. It pains me to see you do this, because it clearly pains you. You're obviously deeply devoted to this project that I love, and I don't want it to be painful for you.

I'm extending an offer to share with you my constructive observations. I think I can help push the situation towards a better, more just, conclusion. If you're interested in having this conversation, please let me know, either here, or at my talk page, or via email. I am prepared to offer evidence of my good faith, if that would help. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in hearing anything more about ED...ever. Thank you.--MONGO 21:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you get your wish. If you ever want to know what I think about how not to feed trolls, you know where to find me. Peace. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a question for you, since you seem to be so concerned about my welfare here...have a read here...maybe you missed the link to an attack article about me posted by another editor...I try to not accuse anyone, but if I saw a link like that to an article attacking you, I would have deleted it immediately. Life is short...don't edit ED and you'll be a better human being for it.--MONGO 21:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I never saw that link. As you can see by looking at the deleted history, I made no posts in that section, and when I look at it now, I don't remember ever reading it before. I noticed and replied to Anomo's post that was at the bottom of the page when I arrived. I ceratinly would have deleted any link to an article attacking you, had I realized it was there.
I can't imagine what you think my motivations are, if you don't believe that I'm trying to end the drama. I appreciate your advice on how to be a better human being. This is Wikipedia, and you should know that I work hard for this site. I failed to notice and delete a link, and I'm sorry that I missed the chance to do so. I've helped you in the past (do you remember?), and I will continue to help you if I see the chance to do so, whether or not you believe me. That's why I posted here today. If I see you feeding trolls, I guess I'll try not to mention it, since you seem to love doing it so much. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
All I know is that is was a very short talk page, with most comments there being one sentences mainly a few words or less. The point is that Miltopia laughed at the attack link, you psted after that link was added yet my subsequent block of Miltopia and my argument with admins who failed to respect that I was honest when I stated that I was trying to protect myself from stalking and harassment fell on deaf ears and is part of the reason I am "penalized". I can easily ignore the trolling from ED folks, but when they show up on articles I am trying to enhance, on articles I am starting and elsewhere, ignoring them completely is impossible. I know you do good work here...I only advise you spend your time doing that and not waste it at ED.--MONGO 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll make one small suggestion, which perhaps you'll see is coming from a genuine desire to avoid conflict. If you should see a name you recognize - an "ED troll" - on an article you're working on, I suggest that you try to forget that connection entirely. If you react by calling the person an "ED troll" or treating them any differently than you would professionally handle the same edit from any random user, then you've just handed out a sandwich. If you just act boring and focus on the edits, then you've just deprived anyone who might be trolling of any satisfaction. Think about it.
By the way - you clearly don't know how I spend my time, but thanks again for the advice. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I , for one, would like to know how a pile of trolls can have a side of a conflict. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you really, or are you being sarcastic? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If you intend to expand on that please do so elsewhere...thanks...ED is old news.--MONGO 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Help me unshoot myself in the foot

I did it again: draw>shoot>aim. A fellow soil sci guy, new to WP, created George Demas, it got prod-ed for good reason, noob deleted the prod, pfft - I restored the prod (I am the User:67.185.75.97 when I get dropped, then I read (seconds later) Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Conflicts telling me, in no uncertain terms, that I BLEW it. My beautiful edit history destroyed in a moment of weakness. I am vapor locking on this. Can you help? -- Paleorthid 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you want me to do. You edited with two accounts...did you make a mistake somehow?--MONGO 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it is working out OK. My issue was what I should do next, revert my deletion, or let it ride, or work up a plan 'C'. Some other editors came into it and their involvement is exactly what the process needed. -- Paleorthid 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see what was going on. Looks to be cleared up now. Is the person not notable...I mean nothing published or otherwise?--MONGO 22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA

MONGO, I would like to nominate you for adminship as I feel the Arbitration Committee have showed a lack of transparency and little or no consistency in their decision to desysop you today. You are an administrator that Wikipedia really cannot do without, please don't let the 5 arbitrators distract you from editing and helping to improve Wikipedia Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated, but now is not the time. If I do "try out" again for adminship, it won't be for a number of months. I'm not even sure if I plan on sticking around this website at this point. The only reason I will is because a number of editors have asked me to. Let me know when you wish to be an admin and if you want me to do so, I can.--MONGO 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, Just to say I really do hope you will stay and if there's anything I can do, please let me know. If you do consider running for admin again, please don't hesitate to contact me and I'll be more than happy to nominate. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and likewise...best wishes.--MONGO 20:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but where does it say that the ARBCOM decided to desysop you? From what I can tell, they decided to take no action against you... What am I missing? And glad you decided to come back. Crockspot 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Just noticed, I am looking at October's arbcom proceedings. Is there a link to the current events? Crockspot 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How long do you think is a "decent interval" before running again? (/me gets out calendar and pen). On a related subject, is there such a thing as a vote of no confidence in Arbcom? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No. ArbCom operates autonomously. The only oversight is Jimbo Wales himself. That, and the potential for losing election for ArbCom if you stand again. But, the track record has been that most arbitrators burn out anyway, so the threat of losing your seat isn't a reality. That said, ArbCom has bended to pressure from editors when evidence of serious error on their part is presented. --Durin 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently it wasn't clear that was a rhetorical question. Apologies. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think six months would be the minimum. For all the kind words posted here to me, there are plenty others would be be overjoyed to see me simply leave the project as well. I don't even know if I can edit the website free of harassment now...so indeed frsutration may lead me to simply walk away. MONGO may have been a target before, but since arbcom has decided on some really drastic measures, I can't see how respect can be restored anytime soon...running now would possible be a WP:POINT violation. Thanks though.--MONGO 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree that running an RfA now would not be a good idea. Most (all?) of the participants in the RfA would not read sufficiently to understand the dispute under which the RfAr was made. Without that, most will knee-jerk and say "Desysopped by arbcom less than a few months ago? No way!" and vote oppose. There needs to be sufficient time separation and a long spell of good behavior. I for one will gladly stand up and defend you if you come under attack again MONGO. You did not get enough support. All of us should feel we let you down. --Durin 22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No one has let me down...no one. I have never said that anyone let me down, so don't think that way for a minute. Not one of the arbitrators have dealt with the level of trolling and daily harassment I have, so they have no compassion that even though I didn't wheel war, I am a "bad admin" or not tempermentally suited because I argued with those who rolled back two blocks I did. The diffs which supposedly demostrate that I violated protected pages should be a warning to all admins...basically, if you protect/unprotect/or adjust to semi-protection a page you "ever" edited, you may be violating policy...and if you unprotect a page you "never" edited, you may be violating policy...especially if that page you protected or unprotected is edited by someone you may have had a edit conflict with somewhere else. If you block someone who is trolling your edits, you are now no longer suitable to be an admin, especially if you contest it when your block is overturned...instead you must wheel war which will then get you an arbcom hearing in which if you are some people, you'll get let off with a 1RR admin remedy, or as in my case, since I didn't wheel war but I wasn't Mr. nice-nice every edit, you'll get desysopped.--MONGO 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Six months sounds reasonable. Let us know. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering leaving the project as well

I'm so disheartened by the sheer lunacy of desysoping MONGO for the evidence in this case that I'm considering leaving the project as well. I think the project is already teetering on the brink of descending into a black hole of POV-laden bullsh*t on all of the controversial articles. The decline into the abyss is likely to accelerate significantly if ArbCom decides to step harshly on those willing to fight the endless battle against it. The rest of the non-controversial material here, the stuff I tend to work on exclusively because I can't take the level of crap surrounding the political articles, will get sucked into the black hole as well, so what's the point of staying.

Maybe the only way to turn this around is if enough good contributors here get fed up enough to walk so that the problems MONGO has been fighting here get taken seriously. —Doug Bell talk 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see you or anyone else (including MONGO) leaving the project, but I remain convinced that the proposed remedies in this case are a mistake. Newyorkbrad 23:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I put the admin parole option on the table, but obviously ArbCom doesn't agree with that solution. My ArbCom election questions seem to be playing out here. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Doug, I think the message of this is not that POV bullshit shouldn't be fought, but merely that administrator tools shouldn't be abused. I really don't think a bunch of people walking out over this would be a good solution to anything. --Cyde Weys 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, this isn't something that just occurred to me this morning; I've been concerned with this for a while here. Because there are people like MONGO willing to call a troll "a troll", and hold some sort of line against fringe theories overtaking reason here, and to defend people against harassment, and to put up with the God awful personal attacks and never-ending crap he's had to deal with...because there are people like MONGO here, I had hope. If all of the good he's done is going to be disregarded for some mistakes he's made, mistakes he's admitted, and mistakes that are less than other's have been given a second chance for, then my hope is gone. I sure as hell don't want to try and fill MONGO's shoes and I don't want to stay here with them unfilled. I'm sorry if that seems like giving up, but if ever there was a case for WP:IAR, then this is it. This is not a measured response when taken in consideration of the good of the project and so MONGO is right—the trolls win. —Doug Bell talk 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think abuse of admin tools is the biggest problem the project faces. You know, this past weekend was a dark one for myself and others. I saw a good Admin leave by a retirement tag posted to his page.[12] I was not in a festive mood this weekend. I don’t want to use my presence here as a tool to get sympathy. I could care less what others think of me. People will edit long after I am gone. Let’s let the cruft lovers have the project. And when the 9/11 tragedy article reads a bunch of holograms covering up the real cruise missiles fired by the US govt into the twin towers as the real 9/11, this project will be viewed by the real world as a glorified cruft blog. I’m thinking of leaving the project as well. My time with my family is valuable. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has to leave the project. If keeping the pages neutral and cited has become an unrewarding and unappreciated nuisance, just stop editing them. No one of us has to do it, and we all have other interests. The people who are most committed are the ones who promote the theories. Let them have their way. If the pages get too bad, others will be drawn to edit. If the arbs don't think we are doing it right, maybe it's time for others to step in and do it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, Doug and Junglecat, you're free to stay or go; participation in the project is voluntary. Personally I hope you stay. I agree with much of what you say and I was just as upset as you to think that MONGO was leaving the project. I think though that this "holding the line" mentality has helped us get to this sad situation. Let's not inflame the situation further here; conflict and conspiracy theories are not the way this project runs. We need somehow to get to a more encyclopedic and consensual discourse on these controversial subjects, or else we face the risk of more editors suffering unnecessary stress. Core values like WP:AGF are especially important here, Junglecat. Please, let's learn from what has happened and move on. --Guinnog 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes perhaps somebody would step in, but it may be too late. As I said above, the project is already teetering on the edge. The non-controversial articles are going to be tainted by the crap and nonsense, so why bother. —Doug Bell talk 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • After reading the RfAr with respect to the supposed misbehavior on MONGO's part, I was able to readily shred 4 of the 5 supposed damning pieces of evidence of MONGO's misbehavior. The case to remove MONGO's admin bit is horribly flawed and exceptionally weak. I've discussed it with one arbitrator and will discuss it with more. --Durin 04:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Durin, please consider posting your analysis on the /Proposed Decision talkpage for others to see. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 04:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I want to do something. I don't know that there is time to avert the desysopping. There's already 5 arbitrators in favor, and the proposed remedies appear defined in as far as the votes are concerned. I may appeal to Cowman109 to hold off on closing it. As a preview, I note MONGO is being desysopped for abusing admin powers because he unprotected two articles, one after a week had passed and another after two days. MONGO acted in compliance with Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Unprotecting. In discussing this with one of the arbitrators, I was told that MONGO abused his admin powers because he unprotected pages on which he had been involved in disputes. Yet, there is no supporting policy/guideline that I have yet found that supports this position. There is policy regarding protecting pages an admin is actively engaged in editing but not unprotecting them. Per protection policy, "protected pages are considered harmful". MONGO worked to remove that harm and is being found at fault for doing so. Given the very serious nature of the "remedy" of desysopping MONGO, the failure to provide a valid policy basis for two of the five points of "proof" is to say the least troubling. I have similar basis on which to challenge two of the remaining three points, but have yet to review the first. --Durin 05:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A block I did on one editor was six months ago. I agreed with most of the persons on the Rfc that was filed about that action that I shouldn't block anyone I could be seen to be in an editing dispute with. I made a threat to block someone else recently...none of the pages I either protected, unprotected or reduced to semi-protection were done in violation of the page protection policy...one page I had never edited. Another I simply reduced to semi-protection so everyone registered could edit it again...there was concensus to do so on the discussion page and I haven't edited the article since reducing it to semi-protection. I also argued with editors regarding my block of Miltopia...they were right that the block shouldn't be indefinite, but never once asked my why I did the block, nor helped me defeat trolling by reducing the block. I posted info regarding the entire situation as has Muscial Linguist and others, yet it falls on deaf ears. I am unworthy to be an admin according to arbcom.--MONGO 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
And a quick review of the actions of the uncommunicating/unblocking admin show that the single unblock constituted his entire experience of unblocking users. I ahve no idea who would riks their admin privileges to block trolls after this decision. --Tbeatty 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, won't be going anywhere. I'll be here, holding the line against unreliable sources WP:RS, unsubstantiated myth WP:Verify, and political axe-grinding WP:POV. To quote the old spiritual: "I shall not be moved." I hope that others will stand with me in the seemingly endless battle against Things made up in school one day. Morton devonshire 05:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They'll have to kill me first. Down with axe-grinding POV warriors. Down with original screed. Down with trolling vandalizing halfwits, linkspammers, and ED apologetics. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No one should leave the project unless they want to. When I was a newer admin. both Katefan and Gator1 had their personal itentities exposed and they both vanished. I was very upset that they would no longer be contributing and also thought I should abandon the project. I knew, however, that the best thing for me at that time was to stay. It wasn't long after Gator1 left that I saw that I was being stalked and then around the time I blocked an editor, the article about me on ED appeared. I was told about the article via anon email...I did nothing to the ED article here on Wiki at that time. When they then made the ED MONGO article their mainpage article and came here to point me to it, I started to see that all they wanted to do was to harass people here. Subsequently, we lost Phaedriel (who has the record of supports in an Rfa) due to ED and another website (same one that harassed Gator1 and Katefan) posting lies and or her personal identity info...most of which she never openly handed out via wiki. I wanted to leave then too. Don't anybody let the my leaving or departing be the impetus to any unwise decisions regarding leaving the project.--MONGO 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No one should leave the project unless they want to.
It would not be because I want to leave, it would be because I see no reason to stay. Unfortunately, that is also a valid reason to leave. —Doug Bell talk 06:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think arbcom expects perfection and they see me as imperfect. I made some mistakes..others have done worse and gotten off with less, but that is the way it goes. If this case was one I arbitrated, I would not be desyopping either me or Seabhcan...maybe (not even sure) I might impose an administrative probation of sorts, as they did on Tony Sidaway here. I see one arbitrator has stated that "Precedent never applies to ArbCom rulings, actually.", so not much can be done.--MONGO 06:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I saw it earlier and appreciate others going to bat for me. The arbcom isn't going to change their mind, so it's a Greek Tragedy at this point...but I appreciate the supreme effort made by many others.--MONGO 12:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • And more effort is coming. Stay tuned. I still need to do some homework on this, but it appears so far that a serious injustice is being done, and one that casts a shadow on all admin functions. If my continued review still supports this, I'll be standing very strongly against this. --Durin 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Durin...I said all I could in the evidence section as did a number of others...the community did not want me to be an arbitrator and doesn't apparently want me to be an admin. I'll continue to do what I can to protect the memory of the three thousand from the lies and misrepresentations that others post on article related to 9/11...that is, unless arbcom tells me I no longer can do even that, in which case, I'm done with this website.--MONGO 15:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen and gathered so far, my focus will be addressing the issue of desysopping you. Whatever other evidence has been brought to bear against you, to make a case for desysopping one should present evidence related to admin abuse. That evidence is very weak. This passage would set a very chilling precedent. I agree with you as above; all admins should be very careful whenever considering using admin tools in relation to any article they have ever edited. Arbitrators on this, from what I've gathered so far, don't want this as a precedent and want to treat it in isolation. But, it can not be treated in this manner. I find myself thankful I didn't use admin privs yesterday on two occasions when I *should* have, and further am loathe to consider using my admin functions now on anything for fear of what may happen. Of course, if I don't use them...why have them?
  • At least some are stating you're not being desysopped for incivility. Yet, that's precisely the reason others are bringing up across various fora. The feet must be held to the fire; what exactly are they desysopping you for? If the five points is it, then their case is weak at best. If there's more, then it should be included in the case. --Durin 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reaction to the poll has been swift. 13 people have voted with respect to you. 10 have disagreed with ArbCom's decision. Not that non-admins count less, but I find it interesting that the three that agree with ArbCom's decision are not admins, and of the 10 so far that disagree, 8 are admins. I think that says something. --Durin 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes... I see all your efforts...I'm not sure what manner of thanks would be equal to the level of effort you have put into assisting me. Surely I will do something to repay you, but my pockets as of now seem to be empty as they have been picked clean. I see the repeated comments by some arbcom members that desysopping is no big deal but this is happening to me not them. Once the thing is closed out, and I'll have no more left to do but work on 9/11 articles...since my efforts there are assisted by others, I imagine my contributions will now become more of a moot point than anything else. A desysopping under the rationale they have pushed is the same thing as saying go away. As I have pointed out and you I see have too...if you get in the trenches and deal with the miscreants and have the level of getting it right as often as I have, in the real world you get promoted...on Wikipedia, you get terminated.--MONGO 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And as a quick analysis, you got it right 99.86% of the time. In most companies, you'd be CEO by now ;) More than 3000 admin actions, and they can find fault with just 5? Astonishing. I strongly suspect I have an order of magnitude more questionable admin actions than that. --Durin 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You might like to know that there have been 80 messages on the mailing list having to do directly with this RfAr today alone. 80. I think there's ample reason to believe that a motion to close should be suspended pending further debate regarding this issue. I don't know if that's unprecedented or not. I suspect it is. --Durin 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I'd just like to apologize for making unauthorized edits to the box. I had no idea it was that widely used. I have recently been cleaning up some Ontario Provincial Parks articles and I have decided to join the Protected Areas projects. I have always enjoyed National Parks and have even taken many pictures - some of which can be found here: Long Point.

I have a small question though, should all provincial Parks - even the minor ones - be tagged with the Protected Areas thing?

Thanks, and sorry again, -- Scorpion0422 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to apologize as being WP:BOLD is recommended often. There are no limits as to where the protected areas tags can be applied..I think the tags should be used only on federal level parks...or ones that are mamanged by the main government authority of a country. However, many people have added the tags tand infoboxes to local parks, even ones managed by cities. There is no rule not permitting such an addition.--MONGO 06:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I planned on adding infoboxes and templates to several Ontario provincial Parks, but if they are not considered major enough, I won't do it. -- Scorpion0422 07:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No, please do..certainly if there are infoboxes on city level parks, then a Province level park is definitely high enough to warrant such an addition. I think what I meant to say is that I personally don't see a need to add the templates to anything below a state park or in your case, provencial park level...but the project has never defined what is the reqirement for inclusion, so some people have added the templates to parks that are very localized, such as those managed by a city. I don't personally do this, but then again, there is no project guideline that doesn't permit it.--MONGO 07:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I added an infobox to Union Bay Natural Area. I wanted to make it easy for others to find its location via the geographical coordinates. It is generically a protected area. The infobox a good alternative to the geolinks tag and it allowed me to add the information about its area and governance that were missing from the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. And, what did you think of the pictures on that one page. I have other pictures from other parks and I can upload them. -- Scorpion0422 07:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Very decent...good job. If an article is heavily laden with images...add the images to Wikipedia commons if you want to release them to the public domain and add a link to the commons page. For some areas, you may have to create a page on Commons and upload the images and then add them to that page in a gallery format.--MONGO 07:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you added a template to the Long Point page. So that means UNESCO Biosphere reserves are a part of the project? -- Scorpion0422 07:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If they are designated as parks or similar, definitely. You could always create subarticles discussing just the Provincial Park that is on Long Point if you wanted as well.--MONGO 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Final question, I promise. Are National Historic Sites that have nothing to do with nature a part of this project? -- Scorpion0422 07:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes...for example...see Chimney Rock National Historic Site and there are many others.--MONGO 07:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not that bad...

Hi MONGO. I would like to say that I disagree with the ArbCom's proposal to remove you admin priveleges. If you wish to run for an RFA some months down the line I expect to be on the list of supporters. Even so, not being an admin is in fact not such a bad thing, I handed in my buttons a few weeks ago and for that I:

  1. No longer feel any guilt whatsoever about backlogs at CAT:CSD, WP:AFD, WP:CP, WP:AIV, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, WP:RFD and WP:CFD.
  2. No longer feel any guilt at not being able to patrol the Recent Changes like I once used to.
  3. No longer feel the need to consider requests for unblockings. (I can cheerfully delegate that responsibility to the others).
  4. No longer feel that I need to maintain the activity of an administrator.
  5. Finally got the time to write and submit an article.

It is perhaps the pain of being told by the ArbCom that you abused your adminship which hurts. For that, I sympathize with you, and I disagree with the comittee on that. Anyway, thought I'd like you tell you that the life of a former admin is less stressful than the life of an admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree that doing so by my own choice would be far easier than to be removed for reasons that are, in my opinion, tenuous at best. I never remember anyone telling me that I was expected to be perfect as an admin, and certainly, it's not like my original nomination was without opposition. Interestingly, I never actively sought to be an admin, but since this case went in directions that make little sense, about all I can see MONGO doing anymore is editing articles related to 9/11...but not sure for how long. I have zero motivation to contribute much elsewhere. I appreciate the kind comments. Thanks.--MONGO 08:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability edits

This note (verbitim) is going to User:VigoDeutschendorf and to User:Tom harrison & User:MONGO: Yesterday's borderline edit-war was rather unnecessary. Vigo: please discuss major changes (like adding entire sections) before making them, especially to a (contentious!) guideline/policy page. You appear to be a new Wikipedian judging from your Contributions page, so your overenthusiasm is understandable. Tom and Mongo: It's not really fair to Vigo (or everyone, for that matter) to revert someone's work without a reasoned and detailed explanation for why in the edit summary or the Talk page, especially if you were not part of the ongoing Talk discussion about the direction of the guideline page in question in the first place. FYI, Vigo's ideas have been integrated (albeit in different wording) by two heavily-involved editors on this topic, and fit well with the overall direction of the new "Misconceptions" section. This is not meant as a flame against anyone (nor even to everyone equally >;-) but a process-enhancing/consensus-building request. Wikipedia:Notability has been one of the most debatory issues on all of WP, and it's really nice to get some progress on consensus happening. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vigo is a sock account of an editor that that has used now something like 4 different accounts, counting IP's.--MONGO 10:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't know, though I suspected. Treating him as a newless cluebie is polite but firm if he really is one, and subtly insulting (given his oughta-know-better edit tactics) if he's not. I win either way. >;-) His edits to WP:N were actually substantive and intelligent, if boorishly handled, and in modified form have been adopted by the active editor consensus, so far, so I'm not sure why his account history is particularly relevant. Judge the edit, not the editor, I say. If he's not engaging in actual sockpuppetry somewhere where it matters, like AfD, and he hasn't been banned, I don't see what the issue is. I have more than one account (I use the pseudonymous ones for making factual and NPOV edits to highly-charged articles like nigger, where being seen to be "defending" the article and its neutrality can be seen in some parts as defending a non-P.C. or even racist POV by people who don't understand how WP works. I use (most of) my real name in my regular account, so I need side accounts.) Many admins use multiple accounts. So, I'm not sure I get the relevance. There's no evidence of WP:N being vandalized by sockpuppets, right? And no, I'm not at all interested in a rundown of Vigo's wrongdoings. He made an edit in presumptive good faith that was actually pretty good, or at least should not have been blanking-reverted without due justification. Again, this is a process/wikiquette/consensus point, not a personal issue or much less a "defend Vigo" (whoever he/she/it is) point. Hope that's clear. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In his first hour of editing, Vigo found his monobook fast...[13].--MONGO 10:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
For a newbie, he also seemed to know a lot about me [14] and his attempt to stiffle my editing was most unappreciated.--MONGO 10:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Noted; I believe you! (NB: Thanks for posting that evidence; just glancing at his monobook.js I just learned about three dozen things I can do that I had no idea I could!) I just don't see it as at all relevant. The fact that he's responding to you negatively over there and you are responding to him negatively over here smells of a personal issue between you and him that has nothing to do with the Wikipedia articles (or policy) that got caught in the crossfire at all. Keep the personal disputes personal, eh? Again, this isn't meant as a flame; I just don't think that "hunting" Vigo (or whatever his name is) is productive, esp. if you wander into substantive debates-in-progress that you haven't been a participant in. Please? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Good...please be careful to not make such huge alterations to that guideline as I see no full concensus for your changes. Thanks.--MONGO 12:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
All based on weeks and weeks of discussion as to all the substantive points addressed by those edits. You weren't there. Shame, too. Your input probably would have been valuable. It's pretty much been just six or so of us, and one has quit WP altogether, so only five, really, not counting occasional one-off commentors. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You act as though what has been done is now in stone...well, it's not. Thank you.--MONGO 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on desysoping

There is a non-binding (obviously) straw poll on the desysop remedy. —Doug Bell talk 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Renom

I have indicated on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision that, should you be desyopped, I will immediately re-nominate you for sysop. Would you accept the nomination if I did? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • See User_talk:MONGO#RfA above. Moving to re-nominate him immediately following a desysopping would be doomed to fail. It's been tried before in another (granted unrelated) case, and that RfA failed miserable. The RfA regulars will insist on seeing a significant track record that shows no sign of the behavior resulting in the desysopping. An immediate RfA does not offer that, and would become less about MONGO and more about ArbCom. We can do that via other means, such as an RfC with all of ArbCom as one side of the dispute. --Durin 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think were I to accept, I would be charged with a POINT violation. I think arbcom's decision is clear...under the rationale they are using to desyop me, I think, "GO AWAY" is the message. So, I can either do that, or not. But I will never again attempt to become an administrator of this website. If I do continue, I will work only on the 9/11 articles and since I have a lot of others who alos help me there, my future role in Wikipedia will be extremely limited.--MONGO 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, if you do get de-sysop'ed I am mulling over running for adminship and (if I get elected) making it a point to keep the 9/11 pages in line with Wikipedia policy of minority viewpoints, which of course does not mean in itself siding with your viewpoint if you should continue to edit the 9/11 pages but at least you will have someone who is intimately familliar with Wikipedia policy of "minority view" treatment watching over the page. You are too valuable a contributor and administrator to lose over people who want to add cruft to articles that deserve respectability. --kizzle 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks...I have already removed most admin related pages from my watchlist...desysopping is going to happen. Let me know when you are running for admin.--MONGO 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Now for the more serious business

Whether or not you get desysopped, resysopped, slapped with the Wikitrout or whatever, is in the lap of the gods, I guess, and many of us have made our feelings known on the mailing list. Jimbo is reading it, so we will have to wait and see. I'd like to address what I see as an important and neglected issue here.

Hopefully even those who are in support of the ArbCom resolution on the basis of the behaviour given in evidence, will recognise that this had a cause (or rather, causes). It seems to me that the problem is not necessarily ArbCom or their decision, but that the situation got that far at all. What I want to know is, what could I have done to stop this getting to this point? Or if not me, then User:Wikimop, a theoretical admin. Or the group of us who are active admins and watch the noticeboards. What signs did we miss, what should we have done to prevent the problem that we did not do?

I see Wikipedia as the number one most attractive target for every kind of lunatic on the planet, how the hell are we going to keep these nutters at bay without ruining the community, throwing away WP:AGF, or losing those who are prepared to defend the breach? We are clearly doing something wrong, because they are muscling in and creating nests of articles on their whacknut theories, which we can't delete because the signal-to-noise ratio is so poor.

Or are we doomed to have an annual "silly season", userbox wars last year, Truthers this? Guy (Help!) 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Excellent questions Guy! I think the mass weight of the whacknuts as a ratio to the ability of the bureaucracy here to contend with it continues to worsen over time and is a function of growth. Take this three years ago, and this would not have even made a blip on the radar. Now, the bureaucratic red-tape is getting in the way of our mission; constructing a free encyclopedia. The days when we could delete articles based on violating Wikipedia:No original research are for almost all intents gone. The days when we could strongly refactor articles to move away from violating Wikipedia:No original research are largely gone as well. Result? We have an increasing number of articles that are pure speculation, based on poor sources, with active, large sub communities of people able to change what appears to be consensus. Indeed the consensus is increasingly becoming in favor of this style of building an encyclopedia. I do not know what we can do to stop it. I expect to lose my admin privs in a similar RfAr sometime in the next year or so. MONGO isn't perfect, and neither am I. Nobody is. The whacknuts are winning. --Durin 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
These are outstanding observations. These problems are growing exponentially. The only thing to do is to keep your eyes on the goal of having an encyclopedia with proper sources. I think that is the area where we need to focus on revamping. We need to work on what defines a reliable/proper reference for material presented for this project. Then we have something to enforce. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We could start by making WP:RS a policy, and not just a guideline, and tighten it up to exclude self-published websites and blogs completely. With that, 99% of the cruft could be excluded, as no credible scientist or journalist would publish most of the junk, except to make reference to it as a cultural phenomenen. Professor Fetzer, the Queen of this Cotillion, does not get published in reputable journals. Morton devonshire 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a problem with that: it is really the source, not the medium, which defines reliability. The fundamental problem with RS is that it tries to legislate Clue. If an article has not one supporting source outside of blogs and self-published media, it should be deleted. If it has several good, solid major sources, there is no problem in principle with fleshing it out using slightly less reliable sources, especialyl for uncontroversial facts. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Back from the brink

MONGO, looking at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#Vote the vote is now tied 2-2 with respect to the motion to close. Since 4 net support votes are required to close, and there are only 8 active ArbCom members, it would take unanimity among the remaining 4 arbitrators to close this RfAr in its current state, favoring you and Seabhcan being desysopped. I think we've stepped back from the brink here. Hopefully some productive discussion and resolution to this will result.

At this point, I think it's unlikely now that you will be desysopped unless significant, strong evidence of abuse of admin functions previously not provided is brought forth. It is possible ArbCom may more emphatically tie incivility to a proposed remedy to desysop. But, right now that is not the case. However, if they do, they have a point. Though, I think trying to tie it in now seems like re-throwing the dice or re-dealing the cards until they get the result they want. I think they've gone to the altar, been told no, and the parishioners are leaving. If they'd worked this out before getting to this point, they would have had a better case. But, that's part of the problem; this RfAr has been poorly thought out and poorly executed.

Regardless, I wouldn't be the first person to stand up and say you are always kind and civil. I've been amazed at the chutzpah you've shown sometimes with respect to this. Regardless of the outcome of this, if you can find a way to remove uncivil words from your commentary it would help tremendously. Lord knows I have wanted to say a number of things that could be interpreted very harshly, or even blatant harshness. I've tried very hard to refactor those comments before hitting the "Save page" button. I'm not a saint either. But, you would do well to try to do the same as much as you can find it in yourself to do. --Durin 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth

[15]. (Radiant) 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/n/User_talk%7EMONGO_7e86.html"