User talk:MONGO/Archive06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between February 1, 2006 and February 28, 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. MONGO 13:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] 202.177.246.3

Well done with the speedy blocking of this dolt over his 9/11 comments. You sir, have an ally.

[edit] Re: Impostor

I only tagged it as such. Thank Curps' bot which did the blocking, Jan. 25. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:03, Feb. 1, 2006

[edit] 7 World Trade Center

I am grateful for the editing effort you put into this and other pages, but I think you went a bit too far in deleting the link to http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html This link was citing a source and not original research. patsw 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Phrygian cap.jpg

It is a with permission image. We don't accept those any more. It nees to be specificaly lisenced under a lisence we can use (GFDL, PD, certian types of CC).Geni 12:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A very special thank you

For MONGO! Thank you so much for supporting me through Rfa, and for the encouragement. Had it not been for this, I would probably have chickened out after the first few oppose votes. If I can ever be of assistance to you, please let me know. All the best Banez 18:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A pretty picture for you. Banez 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Enlarge
A pretty picture for you. Banez 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

In a day or two's time it would be in order, I think, to test this article without semi-protection for a few hours. What do you think? Would you be prepared to do it? I've been doing it a lot but I don't want to carry on if nobody else thinks that this is worthwhile (I do, very much so). --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citation spacing

Glad to help. I used the autowiki browser (a semi-automatic editing tool) to do the citation spacing thing; it's capable of doing find and replace, so I searched for " {{" and replaced it with "{{". That prevents the citation from dropping to the next line if by chance the line ended there. However, it dosen't work for citations in this format [1]. Or at least, I haven't figured out how to do it yet. For those, I have to copy to notepad, do a search, and manually fix them. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

I've seen how you operate Mongo. For any further comment from me please see Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. I think edit warring is lame and I refuse to fight with you. SkeenaR 04:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear.--MONGO 02:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oy

Well, socks and impostors abound, *sigh*! Thanks for the heads up, MONGO. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

I think the point has come for September 11, 2001 attacks to have semi-protection. This is a historical event for which there is very little need for revision. patsw 05:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we freeze all of history? Shouldn't articles always be changing in light of new information? We'd still be thinking the earth was the center of the known universe if someone had said "I think the point has come for Earth to have semi-protection. It is the center of our universe, a popular fact for which there is very little need for revision." Turly-burly 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ha, aha ... that's freakin' rediculous. The September 11 attacks have not even been fully investigated, the case is not closed, the jury is out, it would be preposterous to assume that the issue has been resolved when there exists conflicting opinions on what really happened. But don't take my word for it, take a look at this video, it might just open your eyes to some pressing questions not yet resolved: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801. Just because the government says that this is how it is does not necessarily imply that the events occured in that manner. If the September 11 attacks are blocked for revision, Wikipedia will have become in my mind an area of public censorship, a tyranny of the majority perhaps, but no better than a fully regulated public utility. Nhandler 18:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush Google bomb

Hi, Mongo. I appreciate your concern... however, I believe that reporting of the fact that Bush has been Google bombed is entirely NPOV. It is reporting a fact, nothing more. Sure, if I'd said something like: "Bush is such a miserable failure that many web editors have attested to that fact by Google bombing him", then that would be opinionated and would not belong in an encyclopædia article. As it is, I myself do not believe he is a "miserable failure" - although I do disagree with his politics. But the fact is, it is a notable piece of news which is associated with Bush's public perception, and deserves a mention. I believe that I mentioned it in the fairest way possible. If you think you can re-word it to make it even more fair, then please be my guest :) EuroSong 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I did reword it, by removing it. It serves no purpose in article space other than to deride the man....it's hardly encyclopedic and violates NPOV, IMHO.--MONGO 11:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think that it derides him any more than anything else in the article which states that there is some public opinion which does not favour him? Please explain. Thanks. EuroSong 11:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not noted as a part of public perception and nobody googles miserable failure anyway...I mean, what for. There is no reason to cite a childish prank just to emphasize that he is not popular, especially on the international scene.--MONGO 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Enquirer

I'm moving this to your user page because you not only responded to my comment but felt strongly enough about the NE to actually change the article. I realize that the NE is seen by some people as throwaway gossip, but as the bulk of the actual Wikipedia article "National Enquirer" seems to be dedicated to showing that the tabloid's reports have moved towards verifiable research, I think it's internally inconsistant to treat the NE as an unreliable source. Not trying to be offensive, but you *did* already once express a lack of understanding of the difference between the NE and those magazines like Weekly World News, which makes me think you're not qualified to evaluate the NE as a source. As far as goes your reasoning that the NE makes an article look ridiculous, I have to say that it's unfair to cut the balls off of the NE when some political articles have been known to cite blogging commentators. Turly-burly 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? The national enquirer has been involved in more slanderous lawsuits than any other periodical I can think of. I never bother to edit the national enquirer article anyway to my recollection, and haven't even bothered to look. I remember buying a copy of thier idiotic tabloid just to laugh at all the nonsense in there...years ago. Precisely where in the hell did I show a misunderstanding of the difference between the NE and the WWN...don't impune my ability to know the difference between a trash rag and peer reviewed, referenced based and reliably backed evidence. Did you bother to even look at the outlandish article...not one shred of proof to it, just a bunch of horseshit.--MONGO 19:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you really read my comment, or maybe you don't understand. I wasn't impuning your ability to tell the difference between bad and good; I was suggesting that maybe you didn't understand that the NE doesn't print articles about bigfoot etc.; they usually print articles about gossip about real people. And I know you must not have read the Talk page for George Bush substance abuse, because you reverted my reversion without responding to my reasons for what I did. Your only justification seems to be repeating "unencyclopedic" over and over again while saying "everyone knows the NE is unreliable". If you keep saying "everyone knows", then you are being less reliable than the NE, who at least hints at who their specific sources of information are. Please read -- don't skim -- what I wrote, and if you have deeper reasons than obvious bias against one source, then respond to them so everyone will know why you're right about the article. Turly-burly 08:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Collapse talk page

Taken as a whole, it's hard to see them as other than a personnal attack. I'll speak to him about it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks!

Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your support in my recent RfA! I passed with a final vote count consensus of (82/1/0), which was a lot of support that I really appreciate. I'll try to live up to the expectations; and on that note, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please spit in my general direction. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE : Shoeshone

You'er welcome, it deserved it! --PopUpPirate 12:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Question

I'm not sure exactly where to look, to be honest. If he was teaching in the 70s, it's likely they may not have good records (if any) on him. Furthermore, if he was simply an adjunct professor or a lecturer (and not a member of the faculty), I doubt there would be much info out there. You can try to google him to see if he's still around I suppose. I personally tried "Steven Rosen" PH.D maryland, but didn't have much luck. --tomf688{talk} 14:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Bush, Pet Goat Picture

Hey, so what ever happened to the Pet Goat picture in the George W. Bush article? I lobbied hard on the talk page to get it removed months ago and noticed recently that it's no longer there. I had to remove the article from my watch list since I was getting too worked up over it.  :) The article looks much more professional without it. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 02:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glacial retreat

I replied on the talk page. Please don't assume that I was acting unilaterally or impolitely. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-5 07:27

[edit] Nat'l Forest

Thanks for the note, I'll take a look if I get a chance -- have been kinda busy with non-Wikipedia things and am behind in some of my own wiki-projects. BTW, I did not consider your message "spam." Also, I am thinking of creating an "open tasks" section under wikiproject protected areas -- perhaps even have it a template, so it can be easily posted as a "welcome to protected areas" message on new participant's talk pages. — Eoghanacht talk 14:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Did you know?

That's not an article that had been on my watchlist. This is a lot tougher than simple vandalism, keeping the crazies at bay. Good job. --rogerd 21:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

My admin request went up in flames. (But thanks anyways!)
Enlarge
My admin request went up in flames. (But thanks anyways!)

Hey, MONGO, I wanted to thank you for your support of my (unfortunately unsuccessful) request for adminship. The final tally was 37/16/5, which fell short of the needed 75-80% for "consensus". You're one of the editors that I really do respect on this encyclopedia (for what you've done on George W. Bush, among other things that I can't quite recall at this time). Oh, and also (of course) for voting in support of me. That was cool. Anyways, I don't know if or when I'll go up for nomination again, but even if I don't, I will try not to betray the trust that you and 36 others were willing to place in me. Thanks for having faith in me... and happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord

A final decision has been reached in this arbitration case.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Edit War

I was referring to the edit warring occurring over the inclusion/removal of the {{mergedisputed}} tag. In particular, you reverted the inclusion of that tag here and here. I'm not taking sides on this issue, nor am I attempting to lump you in with anyone. What I wanted to see stop was the edit warring on this particular tag's inclusion or lack thereof. We don't resolve disputes by revert each other. This applies to me just as much as it does to you; I reverted the tag once myself. --Durin 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I am of course assuming good faith. What I did not want to see was a revert war. This is not simple vandalism. I don't want anyone to run afoul of WP:3RR, and I'd rather see there be some discussion on the issue. Following my revert requesting SkeenaR discuss it on the article's talk page, discussion began. This is good. Revert warring over it is not good, regardless of our stance. I for one am against the various conspiracy theories. That said, I'm also against revert warring to try to accomplish something; it rarely works and usually results in negative outcomes. There's been a lot of debate on this article. Prior to today, there's not been a revert war (at least not recently). I'd rather not see one break out. With seven reverts over the same content in the last 24 hours, I think that qualifies as a revert war. Let's all work together. Once consensus is shown to not have the tag, then any attempts at inclusion are clearly vandalism. To them, that might not be the case just yet. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt too. They are engaging in discussion at least. That's better than anonymous vandals. --Durin 15:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On break

My internet connection is down, so I guess I'm on break for a while. Try to keep the inmates from taking over. Tom Harrison Talk 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you get a chance, could you look in on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations? Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Enquirer citation

I was entering the Talk page discussion you cited as missing immediately after I restored the Enquirer citation. You can read it now.

I didn't realize how zealous you were on this topic, such that you'd only be willing to wait 6 minutes before reverting the article. :-)

Anyway, I'm not interested in a revert war. You obviously care about this a lot more than I do, so if you're willing to push your POV in the article that aggressively, you win. --John Callender 15:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joke's RfA

Hi MONGO, thanks for your support in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail.
—bbatsell ¿? 05:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breathe

I think maybe you should step back for a bit from the WTC collapse thing. I can see that you are getting overly invested in having the last word, and exasperated by the push of a few of the conspiracy theorists. Trust me, I can tell... I do the same thing, only worse :-) Some awful, unsubtle scientific racists at Race and intelligence are causing me the same anxiety right now, for example.

I'm entirely with you on keeping the controlled demolition stuff to a tasteful link to a different article, and not giving it any undeserved status as consensus or significant breadth of opinion. But the matter seems tentatively under control for now... I recommend that it's better to allow some silly opinions to go unchallenged on the talk page, as long as the article itself remains sane. Of course, it's easier to give this advice than it is to take it myself... but I'm hoping you'll come urge the same thing on me in the future.

All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonbreaking space

My understanding is that the nonbreaking space   is placed between a measurement and its units so that they are kept together. Otherwise, a line might end with the measurement and the following line begin with the units. This has an odd appearance to most readers and is not desired for that reason. It is used with a — for similar reasons. I am very doubtful that it has any impact whatsoever on the server load.

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I'm pleased that the lava tube image was featured. Indeed, I suspect that Dschwen could have done better. His Image:Ggb by night.jpg is superb. But I though that Michael Oswald's image deserved to be recognized and I'm pleased that enough of my fellow editors agreed. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bigfoot

Hi MONGO,

Could you and DreamGuy have a conversation about Bigfoot - there's kind of a slow edit war going on now, with DreamGuy reverting to the "last good version", ie the last version that had basically none of Beckjord's influences, and Every1Blowz reverting back to the version that does have some of his stuff, largely filtered through edits of yours. I'm hopeful if you two (or maybe three, with Every1Blowz) discussed it, you could come to a consensus so the page could move forward again. Thanks —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HELP!!!

Please see the Jesus page and block User:Robsteadman for completely destroying the 3RR rule with now more than 7 or 8 reverts (not his first time for being blocked for this) Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An invitation!

Hello, MONGO/Archive06! By browsing through your contributions, I've observed your interest in articles related to Indigenous peoples of North America, their Culture and/or History. I'm happy to announce you the creation of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Native American and First Nations resources on Wikipedia and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. I hope to see you there! Regards, Phædriel ♥ tell me 05:56, Thursday December 14, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive type of vandalism

I wonder if you have any insight on how technically to deal with something. I think semi-protection should be used massively more than it is; but that's probably not going to happen. Anyway, I mentioned this certain vandal that I seem to have attracted via maintaining the Ward Churchill page. The thing that was most troublesome about the vandalism is that this person (under ever changing usernames, but often related names) would blank the page and replace it with, e.g. 14,000 copies of a picture of Bush.

The result, unfortunately, of this change is that I can never seem to load the diff to see specifically what the change is, presumably because the WP server times out before sending all that graphic data. Some other editors rolled back the vandalism of this type to my user page or user talk page, but I don't know if they had actually seen the diff, or just assumed the worst. The thing is that I can view the diff: "Vandal->Reversion" (e.g. [1], because the page itself, below the diff, is reasonable); but I absolutely cannot view the diff: "Good->Vandal" (e.g. [2] ). It doesn't really make sense to me, since even the large page should just load the image once, and display it many times from the browser cache; but that's what happens.

I just found an example of the same thing on the Churchill page. A user, "Mr.Trezon" (but it'll be a different name next time), made this change, with the edit history comment like "minor spelling fix" or something innocuous seeming. I simply could not load the diff to see if it really was a proper change or if it was vandalism. As it happened, the same username had made a comment on the talk page that made me fairly sure (overtly claiming to praise Churchill, but obviously meant sarcastically). So I rolled back to the last version, but with less than perfect confidence I was reverting an actual vandal. Once I made the reversion, I could look at the prior diff, which proved my guess correct. But I don't like reverting blindly.

Any thoughts? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. Or only semi-mind :-). The same inquiry at User talk:Guanaco#Disruptive type of vandalism got me a very helpful explanation and answer (and practical advice on how to deal with it). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

Why make personal attacks and threats? You don't like my other edits to 9/11? It makes you happy blocking people? Bad attitude. I didn't blank the page. If you actually paid attention to the edits you will see that I was removing vandalism by someone who put this in -
" ==Conspiracy Theory==

   +       It is speculated that these attacks we're caused by the prophecy of the death of 4chan. JIHAD JIHAD DERKA ALLAH! Twinkie House made [3] famous.
        +       
        +       THIS UPDATE HAS BEEN BRINGED TO THOU BY FUCK GNAA"


If someone got there and reverted before me.. may have confused you enough to jump the gun and make reactionary threats. -- max rspct leave a message 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats a big red flag? U having ago at my supposed political beliefs? I think you have got it mixed up mate > I don't vandalize - i was trying to revert it.. -- max rspct leave a message 21:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three weeks of admin tools

Today three weeks have passed since I was granted access to the administrator toolbox. During this time I have made use of it in the following way:

  • Protections and unprotections: 1
  • Blocks and unblocks: 4
  • Deletions and restorations: 69
  • Rollbacks: 246

I've found that the rollback tool is much more useful than I'd thought for vandalism patrol. In fact it makes that task so easy that I've been doing it more than before. On the other hand I've been surprised by how little the blocking tool is needed. Having done a significant amount of vandalism patrol I have still only blocked one solitary vandal. The great majority of addresses which send out a vandal edit do so only once. Those who do it more often usually stop after a warning or two. Only rarely is a block actually needed and in those cases someone usually beats me to it.

As a side note I haven't retired from writing articles either. I'm still hoping to bring Freyr up to featured status but even though I've already performed more edits on it than on Hrafnkels saga back in the day, a lot of work remains to be done. Community expectations for featured articles have gone up and so have my own ambitions. I'm currently waiting for a couple of books I ordered to arrive and then I may be able to make the final push.

I'm trying my best to live up to the trust you showed in me by supporting my RFA. If ever you feel uncertain whether I'm using the admin tools in the best interests of the project, let me know. I am at any time willing to relinquish the mop and reapply for it to address concerns people have and ensure that I'm not using the admin tools without being trusted to do so. Haukur 22:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

[edit] Sioux images

As usual, your advice is great, Dave :) Right now, I wasn't about to upload any other pics, but I'll move these to Commons right away, and all upcoming ones that qualify will go straight there. Hun, btw - thanks so much for joining the project, it really means a lot to me that you did. I'l drop you an email tomorrow, I promise. Kisses! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem...I'll contribute as I can...mostly just tagging the talk pages for now with the wonderful project template you created--MONGO 23:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yugo

MONGO, please stop un editing my yugo page info. everything i put on there is accurate. there is no porsche engine in a yugo. i know, i am the USA yugo parts distributior, and own fuel injected cars. and the yugo jokes harm my business, and are untrue, and a subject to a lawsuit if the continue. any question, please contact me. amd why are you letting 13 year old edit pages? thank you Jay


I may be 13, but I am very knowledgiable about cars and your contribs are vandalism. This article is not hurting your business, and the Yugo is known worldwide as crap. I am very offended by people using my age to make me sound like I don't know crap. --Karrmann.

[edit] User:Tony Sidaway's userpage

Why did you decide to make his userpage redirect to the talkpage then? What's wrong with it? I saw his userpage in a previous edit history and it looked perfectly fine. The redirect to the talkpage looked like vandalism. --Shultz 01:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It was successful and I hope to be a good administrator. Essexmutant 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

Thanks for blocking orphan and protecting the Yugo page. --Karrmann

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection of Yugo Page

Just to let you know, I would like you to unprotect the Yugo page on Thursday, because by then the heat might have died down. If I want it unprotected earlier, I'll contack you. --Karrmann

[edit] Happy Valentine's day, dear Dave!

Happy Valentine's Day, my sweet dear Dave!
Phædriel


[edit] Socks

Hi MONGO; You blocked Giovanni33/BelindaGong for 3rr on Christianity. I believe User:Freethinker99 is a sockpuppet of User:Giovanni33/User:BelindaGong, et al. Here is the evidence; See also Talk:Christianity#Dirty sock issues. He maintains his innocence. It's initially pretty funny, but moves on through embarrassing to sad and vaguly disturbing. If Giovanni33 is running all these users, he's violating the 3rr and his block. Does that reset the block? Tom Harrison Talk 01:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The socks typically do their three reverts and stop, then an IP or a new user will appear. Giovanni33/BelindaGong are known to be the same from CheckUser. Freethinker99 being Giovanni33 is based on behavior, although one changing his sig to the other's seems pretty conclusive to me. Tom Harrison Talk 02:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to add that User:TheShriek and User:SOPHIA have done nothing wrong; they just share an IP. They're both good editors, nothing nefarious or inappropriate. SOPHIA, thinking she has been lumped in with Giovanni and his socks, is pretty annoyed. Tom Harrison Talk 02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes; Giovanni33, BelindaGong, and Freethinker99. Tom Harrison Talk 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom Harrison Talk 02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is terrible what is being done to these new editors. BelindaGong and Giovanni33 are husband and wife and share the same PC, therefore they are are not socket puppets and no 3RR violation occured. Freethinker explaining he was new and invited by Giovanni was then called a meatpuppet. For his being open and honest (he didnt even know what a meatpuppet was), he is now banned for 48 hours, and his talk page defaced? What a way to make a newbie feel welcome. Btw, if you follow what happened, Freethinker only let Giovanni33 use his computer to answer a question on his own talk page--that is not circumventing the 3RR rule. That was an allowed, legal edit. Freethinker did not ever violate the 3RR rule. Yet he was attacked and blocked for being honest about knowing Giovanni33 and supporting his view? If there was any attempt of Giovanni to circumvent the 3RR rule, why would they come out in the open? That defeats the purpose. The bullying on the Christianity page by a handful of right-wing Christian POV warriors has gone too far this time and I feel the need to speak out. This is hurting Wikipedia, not helping. If this is just going to be ignored then I will see arbitration. FionaS 06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
p.s. I had to create a new account if not I feel I'd be targetd and hounded as well. FionaS 06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gator1

User:Gator1 told User talk:Robsteadman on his talk page that he obviously had issues with christianity because of incidents in his past. This is disgusting speculation which rob did not delete as we new users were under the understanding that you could not delete from your talk page. I complained to Gator on his talk page that his edits were "troll" like and in my opinion disgusting (he removed them twice - even when I answered the points he made on my talk page to give specific quotes that supported my accusations). I did not say he was a "troll" or that he was disgusting - I made my POV perfectly clear and did not try to generalise.

Gator's conduct in the run up to Rob being blocked was not to add anything to the discussion other than one line edits that raised the heat of the situation - not good edit practise in anyone's book. If you read the comments by him on my talk page you will see that he has a threatening self justifying edit style that will inevitable lead to conflict with others. You can have all the messy "he said" "she said" links if you wish but I personally think it's a waste of time as people like him are so sure they are right it will get to nasty to spend much time with them. I myself asked User:GregAsche as he has locked the christianity (I think) page before so I know he is unrelated to the discussion and could give an outsiders view. I was not looking for action as I considered it pointless. It's interesting to find out what goes on in the background.

As things currently stand - Gator has written his own talk history and the comments on my talk page look as though they have gone unanswered - something at least I can do something about.

This is a completely separate issue to the "sock puppet" problem which I'm furious about as my husband's account is never used by me (I don't know the password nor he mine) and other than voice support for Giovanni in the past (he hasn't edited in the last few weeks due to work commitments) his edit hsitory has never matched the users in question or should have drawn suspicion. His sole "crime" in all of this is to disagree with the christian mainstream users which is why he and I were lumped into this mess by them.SOPHIA 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, Orhpan has got to go.

You know our old favorite Orphan1, well now he is threatning to sue to crap out of Wikipedia, and is threatning to sue me, just check his talk page. He has got to go.

MONGO

THERE IS STILL A LINK TO THE YUGO JOKES. THANK YOU SORRY (opps caps) i put it on the wrong part. new at this... there is still a link to the yugo jokes. thank you

[edit] Page protection on Yugo

Is there any reason to leave Yugo protected, given that the person who caused the protection to be needed is now indef blocked for legal threats? - TexasAndroid 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion and national protected areas

OK, I moved it to the discussion area and converted them to your suggested form. I gave credit to you and the project. Feel free to adjust the nomination if I got something wrong. Thanks. Vegaswikian 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks!

Thank you!
Hello MONGO/Archive06, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux Talk

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 09:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Virginia

Thanks for posting WV's article on the request for peer review page. The article is currently nominated for the article improvement drive. Consider cast a support vote for it over there and that might eventually lead to the completionof the th "to-do" list. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:202.177.246.3

Well done with the speedy blocking of this dolt over his 9/11 comments. You sir, have an ally.

[edit] thank you

for blocking User:202.177.246.3 about the only thing nice that can be said about him is that he proves hate filled loons aren't always Americans.

grazon 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks again for the User:Catstail block

In response to your post on my talk... yes remove my name and comment... by all means! Cheers! Netscott 06:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==My RfA==

Thank you!
Hi MONGO/Archive06. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support. Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 20:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium

I saw that in the past you offered to help arbitrate the dispute over this and related articles. Well, the edit war is back, and we need a referee before things get out of hand again. Anything you can do to bring peace to the siuation would be appreciated. Dr U 20:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Mediation, not protection, is what is needed. If you'll look at the history for Depleted uranium, you'll note that there was a large dispute and protection and the whole nine yards about a month ago. There was a settlement which applied to that article, as well as Gulf War Syndrome, and Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium. If you look here, you previously offered assistance to User:TDC concerning this problem. Dr U 22:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I really hate the idea of getting the Arbcom involved, seems to heavy handed at this point, but at the rate it is going it is an enivitablity. Perhaps a new round of mediation might be called for, Pakaran was nice enough to help with mediation last time, but he had a busy schedule, and that seemed to break down. Ten Dead Chickens 22:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Basically there is one side trying to make the article look like an anti-DU pamphlet. The UN, EU, The New England Journal of Medicine, and other major sources have looked at this in detail and concluded that there isn't much evidence of wide-spread health problems from DU. A few obscure journals, and several animal studies suggest potential problems, and ant-DU activists are using this to threadjack the article, delete the vast body of evidence that DU is relatively benign, and insert their own conclusions that go beyond what even published sources are asserting. Our main objections to their tactics are 1. Synthesis of new material not supported by published sources. 2. Deletion of well-documented evidence that DU hasn't caused health problems without providing a reasonable justification for the wide-spread deletions. We have bent over backwards to compromise, and even let some pretty silly and unsupported assertions remain in the article in hopes of achieving peace. But it appears the other side no longer wishes for peace. Dr U 23:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortnately, if James understanding of the material he presents was matched with an ability to understand it, i.e. UO3 gas, his contributions would be very good. Ten Dead Chickens 23:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The issues are now under mediation here. I've lifted the protection you applied to the page: obviously I take full responsability for the consequences :) Physchim62 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem...have fun!--MONGO 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yugo and Nestore

Nestore is still vandalizing the page. Pleaase, please help. He's been getting away with this for four months and my complaints at WP:VIP seem to have stalled. Block him, not the page! -Litefantastic 23:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your vote
My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future.
Martyman - 09:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nez Perce

Why did you move the Nez Perce Horse page? The correct spelling is with the accent. The Neokid talk 17:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply to: ( Thank you!)

For reverting vandalism to my userpage [4]--MONGO 15:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I guess that user likes you [5], he also attacked your imposter:)--Ugur Basak 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi MONGO, this time i thank you for reverting vandalism to my userpage :) [6] --Ugur Basak 13:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neoconservatism

I saw a post on AN/I requesting an unbiased mediator because of commentary by you on Talk:Neoconservatism. I'm unconcerned about what you have to say on the page, for the most part, but I am concerned as to how at least one of the parties came to the conclusion that you are the mediator assigned to the case. I'm hoping it is just a case of mistaken identity, but if you are involved in some form of dispute resolution on the page, I encourage you to either list yourself as a party to the mediation, or allow the mediation to handle the disputes, as having more than one instance of dispute resolution going on at the same time may make mediation difficult. I hope to see a resolution shortly. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm unconcerned about any commentary other than such that would suggest you are the assigned mediator; I don't intend this to be an accusation that you have made such a remark, I just want to make sure that the mediation does not fall apart before it has a chance to begin. If you are a party to the dispute, then you need to be added to the mediation; if you are not, I implore you to let the mediation handle the disputes. We can't mediate a dispute if there are other forms of dispute resolution ongoing; either everyone involved agrees to mediate, in which case there is no need for other resolution, or everyone involved does not agree, in which case we can't hear the case. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Awards

This is not urgent, so please, dont feel you have to respond right away, i can see you are busy with other stuff. But i was just wondering where i might find the templates for those star award thingy's that i see on your page. Any help would be great. Thanks. "Dont forget to wear you Gephy's"--Geppy 08:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory

Hi.. i added a speedy tag on the page 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory 2 times. But both the times it was removed by the user who created the page. What must I do? - Aksi great 14:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism. Needless to say, tf you have any questions about any of my actions, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. I haven't forgotten about your request for a map of Shoshone National Forest. I've compiled most of the data I'll need for that part of the country, and will very soon have a map for you, that includes shaded relief/terrain. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don;t worry about

Cjmarsicano. Just see his comments on the Dr. Laura nomination page [7] and know that his objections likely, have very little to do with the article itself and more to do with his/her personal biases against the article's subject.

[edit] My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your voting!

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very mach, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Fixing a boo-boo

Dear Mongo: In trying to create a subpage for the talk:Jesus page, I managed to create an article subpage instead. Could you, um, make it a subpage off the talk page? It is: Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees

should be:

Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees

Thanks! --CTSWyneken 13:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I think I can establish the new one correctly, but as a non-administrator, I don't think I can delete the page created by mistake. If you can just trash it, I'll start again.

The reason for the subpage is the section is a long-term documentation project. We're trying to see what the sense of scholarship is on an issue. It is already buried on the talk page. By creating the subpage, interest folk can add to it and we can easily refer to it when it comes time to make decisions.

I appreciate the assistance on this and on (hopefully) convincing Rob Steadman to play nicely. I've been trying, with limited success, to get others to treat him more kindly -- or just ignore him.

Bob --CTSWyneken 13:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I just don't want a stray page hanging around. Thanks! Bob --CTSWyneken 14:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. You do, I assume, have a life! 8-)

By the way, could you take a look at Robsteadman's talk page and tell me if you think I'm out of line in trying to moderate the Jesus talk page discussion? --CTSWyneken 04:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mysterious edit

Oops, sorry. My cat made me do it. Faseidrnan 14:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glacier retreat

For its FAC, I am starting a fact/reference check on Glacier retreat. As the proponent, may I posted questions here on your talk page? I'll assume you said 'yes' and begin (you can move this conversion to the FAC page or other talk page if you like):

  • First, I am glad you (or someone) created a section on Glacier mass balance, it was slow going with that data sources section. Unfortunately, this alteration messed up the references. If you don't have a problem with it I will re-format them to the new m:Cite/Cite.php system so they will order themselves.
  • In "Alps" the 1995-2000 edition of something (a report?) is referred to and its results given but I cannot find the reference. Is it on the WGMS website? --maclean25 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Striver

User:Striver needs to be banned. All the article's that he's made are up for deletion with majority delete votes, he keeps on reverting edits that aren't vandalism and putting "reverting vandalism" in the edit history, and he refuses to be civil as can be seen from the several afd's to which he has contributed and from this talk page edit where he tells User:Zora to "fuck off".--Jersey Devil 12:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't think it was reported. That is what I thought I did 'reporting' it to you since you are an admin who has dealt with the user before. Anyway, this poster is simply not contributing positively to Wikipedia. Something has to be done about him.--Jersey Devil 19:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think he also broke the three revert rule in that thread. Page History.--Jersey Devil 19:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't deal with this anymore, look at what he did to the Cynthia McKinney page. If I revert it he'll just revert it back and say "vandalism".--Jersey Devil 23:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Information Warning -Ambuj.saxena

The User:Ambuj.saxena has posted his photograph and address on his user page.He has also revealed his full name {which is his ID}.This could be dangerous to him.Please intervene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prasi90 (talk • contribs) 09:05, February 25, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bigotry?

Expressing my political opinion does not count as either bigotry or vandalism.I am excersing my right to free speech,guaranteed to me under the Constitution of India.If one can add a userbox proclaiming himself to be a fan of the US why not vice-versa?One must ask who the REAL bigot is in this case.

PS-Why are you tracking me?I'm just a kid man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prasi90 (talk • contribs) 09:34, February 25, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning posted against Robsteadman

I have placed the following on the talk:Jesus page, near the bottom: Warning User Robsteadman: you are engaging in personal attacks on recognized scholars. Please stop. --CTSWyneken 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Robsteadman has reverted the Jesus page 3 times today. --CTSWyneken 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism by User:Snk 444

Hi Mongo, I've had an close eye on this user for awhile now, and its clear his actions indicate trolling/vandlaism (see his contributions). He also has refused to engaged in discussion, and merely pops back into revert and blank articles. He's also quite found of personal attacks. I would inquire for an indefinite ban. -ZeroTalk 23:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robsteadman Attacks and Insults Editor

Please note Robsteadman's post on user drboisclair's page. --CTSWyneken 16:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. My only interest here is achieving some sort of harmony, which has proven difficult with this user. I would appreciate it if you would look at the talk:Jesus page and advise if any of my posts there are out of line. --CTSWyneken 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly as I would hope. My intent here is to see if there is anything I need to change. I'm trying to moderate the discussion. I've so far managed to talk the one side out of filing an RfC, but been less successful at talking them out of responding from anger. --CTSWyneken 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My disruption vandal again

Hi MONGO, I'm getting a return visit of the FFF* vandal who inserts thousands of copies of a GWB image on my user talk page. Apparently in this case s/he created the User:UF account long enough in advance to escape semi-protection. I wonder if you could block this one. Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art bike

Hi, I noticed you tagged art bike as possibly unencyclopedic, but the talk page is blank. Could you please explain? Thanks. --Christopherlin 23:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Block

I know that you dont like me, but you are not the community. I know there are parts of the community that done like me, and i can live with that. But dont pretend that a part, i addmit a significant part, of the comunity is the whole comunity.

In my talk page, you accused me of things that i deny of being. You know that you are highly involved in articles we both edit, and if you block me on you own, you will be abusing your admin rights. A admin is not supposed to use his rights in cases he is personaly involved in.

I would like to remind you off this:

I don't dislike you...I find your contributions as of late to be disruptive and I therefore do not like your edits..there is a difference.--MONGO 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The above-conflict has shown a bright light on an issue I hadn't considered before, which is WP's policy on Admin neutrality. Since the time I began editing on Wikipedia, I've seen Admins violate all sorts of WP policies to advance their own edit agendas, everything from nominating articles for speedy deletion, ad hominem attacks, stalking, violating 3RR, and writing articles without sources. Is there truly no neutrality standard for Admins? Sorry to burden this audience, but I'm trying to understand where the line is supposed to be drawn, and want to hear from those of you that I know from these pages rather than some dufus who patrols Admin pages. Also, the issue has now become relevant for this article (and the fork) as well. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me. --Striver 19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Admins are held to the same editing standards as every other editor. If you have concerns about conduct by a Wikipedia user, please follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Please remember that admins are people too, and it would be unreasonable to believe they should be perfect in all ways. Everyone has made some mistakes at some point. Rhobite 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#Is_Admin_Neutrality_A_Myth.3F


I edit not to piss people off, but because i genuinly belive i make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia by doing so. Fact is, your feelings towards me are mutual. I percive you of having a:

POV pushing agenda and constant creation (deletion) ... trolling incessant commentary in some discussion pages, where you go on and on about the same tired nonsense are in no way helping this project.

What i advice you of is either to start trying to cooperate with me, or find a neutral admin that can decide between us. Peace. --Striver 00:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to cooperate with you...your agenda is solely to push a POV that is so far off from mainstream science that it hardly deserves mention. I have, as you can see on this talk page, many editors that are becoming very tired of your POV pushing agenda and it is about to come to an end.--MONGO 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cynthia Mckinney

I told you that he would revert any reverts on his edit on the Cynthia McKinney page and claim vandalism. This user already survived a block and goes around laughing about how we can't get rid of him with current Wikipedia policy (see my talk page). He deserves to be banned by now not just blocked. [8]--Jersey Devil 02:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Striver's interference with AfD process

Hi MONGO. I was looking around for a place to post about this, and I discovered that you've been monitoring Striver, so perhaps you're the best person to ask instead of me posting on WP:AN/I. Woud you please consider analyzing Striver's recent actions regarding all RfAs in which he is currently involved? He's openly accusing people of bad faith, insulting them, making open calls for admins to "admonish" people for nominating 9/11-related articles in the first place, etc. ... but worst of all, he's going around soliciting votes from like-minded editors in order to swing AfDs in the way he wants (usually, if not always, in order to keep 9/11 crankcruft articles from ever being deleted). He has even created a WikiProject page where he lists all currently-open 9/11 AfDs. This, of course, pretty much makes AfDs meaningless because it means that that any "consensus" reached on a given AfD may be completely fraudulent, and if that starts happening, what's to stop users from eventually ignoring AfD altogether at a broken system and instead starting to simply engage in edit wars, blanking pages, etc.? Given that, I think attempts to overtly sway AfD votes should be taken very seriously. I asked about this, without naming names, on WP:VPP; as I type this, the consensus there is unanimous that such vote-pumping schemes are wrong. I was able to get Cohesion to give him a gentle warning, but he has instead ramped up his spamming campaign up even more; see for example Talk:Alex_Jones_(journalist)#AFD. All this is above and beyond the problem of Striver creating tons of virtually unreadble crankcruft articles (and I say not not to insult him, but as a legitmate concern; most of the articles he's created or expanded on 9/11 topics make very little sense, are riddled with grammatical errors, and so on); bad articles can be cleaned up, and articles that shouldn't exist at all can always be AfD'd. But if AfD itself ends up rigged so that anyone with the ability to call on enough like-minded friends can prevent any article from being deleted, then Wikipedia as a whole is going to end up in a big mess pretty fast. So I ask you, please, look into this AfD matter. I'm not asking for any specific action to be taken against Striver; I don't have anything against him as a person (Hell, ten days ago I'd never even seen him before). I just want the AfD process interference to stop. Thanks for reading this, whatever you decide to do. --Aaron 02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smear campaign

Quote:

:I, for one, am insulted by the suggestion Striver was soliciting. I voted on and have a strong opinion about the last AfD on the 9/11 group. Bringing the new one to my attention was entirely appropriate; I am an interested party. I also would probably have found it by my daily AfD scans in any case. A second AfD so soon after the first is also very unusual (not against policy per se, but...). People are legitimately going to want to know. Georgewilliamherbert 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Source: User_talk:Aaron#vote_solicitation --Striver 03:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AFD

You missed this guy: Peter Lance. --Striver 05:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your block of Striver

This block may have been justified, I know the 3RR is not meant to give a quota of three reverts, but to set an absolute limit of three. Still, I wonder if it was a good idea to carry out the block yourself, when one of Striver's additions was reverted by you, see WP:3RR#Administrator_involvement. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I invoked WP:IAR in this egregious situation. Striver (talk • contribs) has been gaming 3RR for awhile, has been disruptive to a point and has been creating articles in a strong POV push that are quickly nominated for deletion by others. The articles he has been creating have notablility only in the the most minor of terms and he has spammed other users to vote in the Afd's and in the Afd spaces himself. I recognize that my block may not appear kosher, but unless he reforms from his disruptive pattern, a permanent ban is probably in store after arbitration if necessary. I have recieved both on my user talk page and in email, 19 complaints about this editor for over two weeks now. I thank you for bringing the issue to my attention, but I would hope that you'll examine the contributor's edits and recognize that my block is not as unilateral as it may appear.--MONGO 10:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I realize that Striver's edits are often quite odd, and that much of what he has created has wound up on AFD, sometimes they have been blatant copyvios as well.

But I am generally very disturbed about blocking people based on IAR. Partly because blocking is a serious action which invariably hurts the person being blocked who will, in one sense justifiably, view the block as unjust and that he is being unfairly treated. More pragmatically, because it hands the blockee a free card to use in a RFAr which might arise, see the FuelWagon v. Ed Poor ArbCom case for an example. (Look how these admins who brought the case against me have been treating me!) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The editor is free to use whatever means he feels are available to him and if it means arbitration, then that is fine...see also his attack page on 9/11 articles and on particular users on the associated discussion page as well Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild.--MONGO 10:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to register a complaint regarding your block. There is no sign of adequate revert edit summary explanation for why his content was reverted in your, Jersey Devil, or Rogerd's reversions of his content adds today. Nor did anyone mention specifics on the article talk page as to why his content was inappropriate. These reverts were in the manner of how someone responds to an obvious vandal or spammer, not a content dispute.
There is clearly a lot of controversy over what Striver is up to over the last few days regarding 9/11 related articles. Nonetheless, you are not likely to find a consensus that he is either an obvious spammer or a vandal. He's doing a lot of WP:POINT. I believe he is concerned that there's an AfD campaign "out to get" legitimate 9/11 conspiracy articles and is attempting to shore up the articles. That is not vandal or spammer behavior.
The combination of several users who never showed up on the article before repeatedly reverting his content adds, without sufficiently detailed reasonable edit summaries or talk page discussion, and then bending the 3RR definition and ignoring the "don't revert in your own argument, ANI them" is bordering on admin wikistalking.
He's obviously pissing a lot of people off. But he's doing it trying to add content to things he thinks are important. People reacting by AfDing articles before he has a chance to expand them beyond a stub, reverting him without edit summaries or talk page explanations, etc is not helping the situation. That's provoking him as much as his behavior is annoying you.
I strongly suggest that you unblock and ask him to stop what he's doing voluntarily and head to a mediation session or some such while the AfDs are put on hold for a bit (ask the AfD nominators nicely to suspend or something). People following him around and gang-reverting his stuff is approaching lynch mob, and this just ain't right. Unblock and recuse yourself from any more admin actions regarding him, and see if talking will help. Georgewilliamherbert 10:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your complaint is noted. I'll just respond here if that is okay, to not break up the flow of this conversation. My view, and the view of a large number of editors is that his actions are disruptive, not that they are contributory. He willfully taunts the 3RR rule in anumber of situations and even so, I do not necessarily consider his edits vandalism, and that is why I don't use the rollback feature on his edits. With that said, his attempts are purely to be agenda driven, not to work within the concensus. The articles you speak of that he has created are based on this agenda driven effort to create notiablility of those that are not notable. None of the people he has written articles about are notable. He has spammed user tlak pages and within the afd voting area to see also and then direct to other articles that he has written that are in afd. That is blatent spamming. The end result is that the articles achive no concensus for deletion and that is wrong. Many of the articles he has written are speedies as they fail to explain why the person is notable. We have been talking to him, for almost two weeks now and he continuously posts the same tired information that numerous editors have told him will not go into those article spaces as they are not notable...except to those that believe that 9/11 has been erroneously reported by the vast majority of news agencies and governement investigations. I won't unblock him..it's a short 1 day block and it will give him the time to decide if he is going to become an asset or continue to be agenda driven.--MONGO 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've said this on the Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second_nomination), loudly, but let me repeat myself. I believe the conspiracy theories are, scientifically and from a logical evidence sense, unsupported crap. I also believe that enough people believe them that adequate accurate NPOV coverage in Wikipedia is completely justified. Your attitude regarding this appears to be that it doesn't matter if people believe it; if the belief is crap, then the article should go.
This problem blew up, as far as I can tell, because of the second Scholars nomination 9 days after the first one failed, followed immediately by a flood of other 9/11 conspiracy related deletion AfDs. I agree that Striver's WP:POINT and more on some of these other article creations. But it's provoked, and not his reaction alone. My initial reaction to the second Scholars nomination, again noting that I believe their theory is crap, was violently obscene and abusive, for which reason I didn't post any response for a little while. My second initial reaction, which I also sat on, was to go for a RfA on the nominator for bad faith and abusive renominations of something which had just survive one AfD. Having moved past those reactions to the point I could post something without personally insulting and attacking several people, I then responded.
I agree these theories are cranks. So are UFO believers, Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theorists, and most but not all people who have seen Elvis since his alledged demise. But they are certainly widely enough held to be notable. The 9/11 conspiracy stuff is timely and a hell of a lot of people believe at least part of it. Not covering it is an act of folly.
Striver wasn't going out "spreading the word" adding dozens of articles until the second round of AfDs started, as far as I can tell. I don't agree with how he's doing his response. I don't agree with what I think his personal opinion is (I perceive that he believes some of the conspiracy theories). I entirely agree with his starting point that there's an extremely questionable attempt going on to edit out any mention of a lot of serious, widely held people's 9/11 conspiracy beliefs.
The only way to fight conspiracy theories is to hold them up to the light, document them, shake them around some in public with open and fair discussion, and let time and open discussion show their folly. Deleting mention of them when any significant number of people believe them leads to them festering and becoming part of the underground cultural memeset. If you really disagree with the conspiracists but move to delete them, then you're playing right into their hands.
At this point, I don't know what the right thing to do is. I very very strongly believe that nuking the Scholars article is the wrong thing to do, and people egging Striver on, on so many levels, is also very wrong. Blocking him was wrong.
I think your behavior, and that of a whole lot of other people, is both counterproductive and approaching lynch mob status. I disagree with what Strider is probably trying to say about the conspiracies, but in this case I very strongly have to support his right to see it said appropriately on WP. If people are going to try and delete the Scholars article, you can't possibly expect him not to try and expand the article base to cover more sources and more of the issues.
Anyways. My two dollars and change of opinion on the subject. Georgewilliamherbert 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I edit many articles and I see no evidence that there is a lynch mob, but I respect your view on this. Basically, when an editor posts things that are basically far out and ebven insulting to the intelligence to most sane poeple, and then goes around creating articles about people that are just "legends in their own mind" that help to back up this POV and agenda push, he is going to be taken with a grain of salt. I've looked over Stivers edits and even found one from some time ago where he told another editor(s) "fuck you" [9]. Wikipedia is not a repository of nonnotable biographies or articles...see WP:NOT. I see no evidence that my behavior is counterproductive in the least. Just so you know, I didn't nominate the articles he has created for deletion, but am glad they were nominated. Now if he just would not try and solicit for votes to keep, then maybe they would goaway...a few of them qualify as speedies anyway and there is little chance he will be able to enhance them once he is made to show WP:V as they depend on original research and there is nothing to support the articles aside from the web pages self proclamation of notability. He has a right to voice, a right to create verifiable articles and a right to complain, but not to the point of disruption, taunts POV pushing.--MONGO 11:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Exclusive singling out of Jesus and Christianity with POV flags

Dear MONGO, I appeal to you as an administrator of WP to consider what some of us consider to be the unfair singling out of Christianity and Jesus with neutrality flags. Why do these articles have to be subjected to this indignity in view of the fact that they are carefully monitored by all of you? Putting up these flags on other religions' articles would not be tolerated. I appeal to you for equal treatment as I feel that this borders on discrimination. I understand that there is dispute, but we try to dedicate ourselves to WP:NPOV. Isn't that enough? Please consider the stigma that we as Christians must labor under with this. drboisclair 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. I would like to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, so I apologize for any hand I had in escalating this dispute to the point that it is. drboisclair 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borrowing an eyeball

I wouldn't say it's a quid pro quo, since I've enormously enjoyed working on the glacier articles, after your half-request about it. But let's say, if I can tempt you to look at an area likely to prompt edit conflict, that would be cool.

So it's that usual thing that I've somehow gained responsibility for, at least in my own mind. After User:Doug Bell slapped the category "scandals" on the Ward Churchill article, it prompted me to do something I've been meaning to do: refactor it further. Earlier, I had spun off the sibling/child Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations). Doug Bell also put the scandals cat on the child, which seemed more-or-less appropriate (not that I think it's really a great cat in general; but inasmuch as it's around, the misconduct allegations apply well enough).

That still left some of the stuff about claims of McCarthyism and the like in the main article, which felt a little bit unbalanced. To my mind, a biography of an academic should basically say: born such-and-such, went to school here, wrote these books, has this academic job... maybe a bit of characterization of the nature of their work, but in an fairly formal manner. Anyway, I therefore today also spun off Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy). The main bio, of course, has prominent pointers to both of the children/siblings, and a few sentences introducing those links. But basically, I'm very happy that the bio is just that, a biography. FWIW, WP:SIZE still prompted the refactoring, from a purely stylistic perspective (but obviously not quite so urgently once the first spinoff happened).

Anyway, as expected Doug Bell has bellyached a little bit already about the refactoring. Not so bad. I forget the name of the user who went absolutely apoplectic about the first refactoring. But nontheless, I know Doug Bell isn't quite so happy with a neutral bio, because he wants a "condemnatory bio" (which isn't encyclopedic, of course). I suppose I might get some more editors jump in with the same sentiment.

Maybe out of all that, I can interest you in adding a fairly uninvolved voice-of-reason. The talk page of the Churchill article pretty well documents the events and positions. It's really not terribly rancorous by standards of what that page has seen... and I'd like to keep it so. All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I can always count on Lulu to paint anything somebody else contributes as POV, and his own edits, of course, as completely neutral. It does get tiresome. I trust you to make up your own mind and not just swallow Lulu's POV characterizations whole. I could say that Lulu wants a "sanitized bio", but I want to keep the discussion about the article and not personalize it, so I've WP:AGF in my comments on the talk page and not made any assumption as to Lulu's motives in his latest changes and instead focused purely on writing a better article. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Monitor Talk:Jesus Final Vote

Hey there. Just wanted to ask you to keep an eye on the Talk:Jesus page this week, we're trying to vote past that stupid Historicity line once and for all (or at least, for thirty days), and right now, the percentages lean against a certain rather vocal editor's preference. I have a great feeling that if the current winning line ends up taking the vote, all hell will break loose from this person, and we're going to have another revert war on our hands, as this editor has very clearly stated that he or she (being ambiguous here, I assure you) will not abide by a concensus which he or she believes to push a "Christian cabal POV."

Thanks! --Avery W. Krouse 06:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for supporting my successful request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsible use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karmafist

I saw your support vote for Karmafist. I initially voted to support but changed to neutral after seeing his encouragemnt of banned users to create sockpuppets to get around valid blocks. Why should I support? It's kind of moot as, unless a miracle occurs, Karma's RFA will fail, but I am interested in your opinion.Gator (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/n/User_talk%7EMONGO_Archive06_13dc.html"