User talk:MONGO/Archive15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Notes

  • Cplot
  • CamperStrike
  • "Block wars, in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful. They frustrate and disappoint seasoned Wikipedians and encourage further bad behavior from the blocked user. If you disagree with a block, discuss the matter with the blocking admin and others, and try to reach a consensus, rather than unblocking — the blocking admin is likely to know more about the background of the situation than you do."See: Controversial Blocks

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)

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)
Calling a troll a troll is a stupid move. If the user is not a troll, they'll respond angrily to being called a troll. If the user is a troll, they'll respond angrily to being called a troll, and continue to troll. Ral315 (talk) 08:07, 13 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, especially for uncontroversial facts. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have some suggestions on what we could do then? Morton devonshire 01:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I will head over to RS. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest, politely, and at the risk of being shouted at, that part of the problem is that too many editors slap the label "whacknut" on editors they disagree with and "whacknut theories" on subjects they know nothing about, but which the feel 'must not be true'. Just one example is Morton's arguments against Dr Ganser's book and his claims about its contents - even though he hadn't read it. I realise that you 'know it can't be true', but sources presented by "whacknuts" should be honestly assessed, not dismissed simply because they are part of what you personally consider to be "whacknut theories". ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think I haven't read it? Morton devonshire 05:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Characterizing the views of 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "whacknuts" is inappropriate, however, the 9/11 "truthers" characterize in every way shape and form as an extreme minority viewpoint, or to quote precisely:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
I hope this helps you understand why the 9/11 conspiracy theory "should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all," according to explicit policy. --kizzle 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
For 9/11 we are talking about "ancillary articles" here, yet Mongo et al continue their wars there. Also, the numbers of adherents aren't all that minor. Third, this particular dispute flared up over the Gladio article, a topic which is an accepted and official part of European history. Yet Morton et al try to delete it simply because they don't like it. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 03:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I just think it's a poorly sourced article, and that Ganser's work is without sufficient academic rigor. My country has done lots of rotten and stupid things -- like the recent mess at Abu Ghraib -- but that story is here because it is documented by reliable sources, and so deserves an article here, and I've never attacked its citations. Unlike the whole Operation Gladio article, which is built on Soviet propaganda, and second-rate research by an author uncritically embracing conspiracy theory. Daniele Ganser's work reads like the subjective rants of a seventh-grade school girl wed firmly to the belief that if something is rotten in Europe, it must be the fault of those EVIL IMPERIALIST DOGS. Morton devonshire 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
For the number of adherents I think we will have to agree to disagree. I will be familliarizing myself with the 9/11 pages in the next few weeks, then I'll have more to say. --kizzle 03:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well we can argue about degrees of 'minor' if you like, but certainly the number more than adherents of the Flat Earth Society or Technopaganism, yet we have articles on those, and don't feel the need to label editors who contribute to them as 'whacknuts' ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 03:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. ANybody who seriously believes in a flat earth, certainly anybody who belivees it after having had a Western education, is clearly one sandwich short of a picnic. The recent flat earther advocates have largely concentrated on the humorous potential. The concept is notable, and it can be documented without making any attempt to assert that it is true, because we all know that it is not. Ditto the truthers. Anyone who genuinely believes that WTC and the Pentagon were not hit by airliners piloted by terrorists, is in the grip of a serious delusion. We can document their delusion but we absolutely must not pander to it. The articles should make it clear that their theory is delusional, that it violates Occam's razor. That doesn't mean the editors adding the content are whacknuts, it means the people proposing the theories are delusional. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree that counterpoints should be included (read the articles - they are there already) while of course, avoiding adding any of our own opinions - which would be OR. I don't see the need to insult editors who work on those articles any more than we need to insults editors who work on other articles. We should ensure the articles are balanced. Calling anyone a whacknut only creates strife and anger. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am resigned to leaving here because of the reasons related to "whacknut" problem you lay out. I'm inclined to do so because I think that structurally the project is not going to be able to resist them, and especially if those like MONGO, willing to stand in the breach, are going to be discarded. The people promoting fringe theories have endless time and energy to wear away and degrade articles that are based on reason and rational thought that they disagree with. But I'm interested if there's some way to attack this problem at it's roots instead of having to fight the endless fires across article space. —Doug Bell talk 02:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys, how about creating an original research patrol or board to investigate and control of such cases? WP:NOR is a non-negotiable policy like WP:C or WP:NPA and should be monitored and if necessary removed by admin actions the same way as the copyvios, PAs or vandalism Alex Bakharev 04:05, 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)

I won't hazard a prediction on the outcome of the case, but in all other respects, I agree with Durin's comments (as I've been doing a lot today). Newyorkbrad 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree. We all get caught up sometimes, and lord knows given the topics you have decided to participate in, you've encountered some people that make you want to tear your hair out. Don't let them, or Arbcom, or anyone else get you down, and if you come out of this with your sysop privileges retained (which looks like a possibility now), take Durin's point about waiting a few minutes before hitting "Save page" to heart, along with the obvious outpouring of support the community has shown towards your immense ability as both a contributor and an administrator. Keep ya' head up Mongo, we got your back :) --kizzle 03:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a LOT of back-and-forth, no new light type of discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision. I don't think much more progress is going to be made there now, if any. ArbCom has shot itself in the foot twice in the last 24 hours, that being assertions they want to desysop you on faith that you're going to screw up in the future ("personally have doubts about his judgment in future") and that you didn't change your behavior from the last RfAr ("not much changed from the last time he went through arbcom") except they didn't ASK you to change your behavior.
  • At this point, I think myself and others achieved what we set out to do (though of course there was no agreed strategy or anything). We stopped the train wreck that would have resulted in desysopping you and Seabhcan. We finally got ArbCom's attention, and the motion to close vote is now 2 in favor 3 oppose. Even if the three remaining active arbitrators moved to close, it'd be 5-3. It's not going to be closed in its current state.
  • Of note; today, Fred Bauder added a new remedy to suspend you as an admin for six months. I posted to the talk page that this was no better than desysopping, and similarly lacks basis.
  • I don't think ArbCom will have an easy time of trying to defend a case for you to be desysopped. Again, doing so would strike many as re-dealing the cards until they get four aces. I think their best chance of moving forward with anything against you will be a civility parole.
  • However, to get to any decision I think they're going to have to either completed restart the RfAr or majorly backtrack in the current RfAR. I'll keep tabs on this, and voice objections as I see a need. At this point, it's probably best if we sit back and wait to see how ArbCom decides to attempt to steer this drunk whale. :) --Durin 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth

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

Way forward

MONGO, you know I was never in favour of desysopping anyone over this affair. I saw Durin's advice to you ("if you can find a way to remove uncivil words from your commentary it would help tremendously") and I would like to broaden that advice to all editors, whatever "side" they are on here. Indeed, it is the division into "sides" that I see as one of the problems here. There are no "whacknuts" here, only editors of varying points of view, trying in their own ways to improve the encyclopedia. I heartily agree that we must stand very firm indeed on WP:V and WP:NPOV, and resist the inclusion of conspricacy-cruft into our encyclopedia. But I suggest we remember too the core values of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Reasoned debate and adherence to policy on all sides will help prevent anyone else suffering what you have. Whatever the outcome, I hope you'll continue to contribute here. Very best wishes, --Guinnog 05:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No doubt, all that is achieved by me or anyone being incivil is to create an atmosphere uncondusive to a collarborative effort. I shall make all attempts to not come across as incivil again.--MONGO 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I am disappointed that the Committee chose to desysop you. I hope you shall continue the great work on the articles as you used to in the past. Best wishes for your future endeavours. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 08:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Given that our only real interaction to date was less than pleasant, you may not be too eager to hear from me, about now. You've accomplished a lot on the wiki, and you have been and will probably continue to be seen as an institution of sorts. I have tremendous respect for anyone willing to put in so much productive effort, from arbitrators to admins to the wholly necessary everyday editors. I don't know quite how to convey what I'm thinking, here: it doesn't seem right to say that you have my sympathies, or my condolences... perhaps it's just best that I leave off by saying that you have my respect. Wherever you go, whatever you do, you are yourself. Luna Santin 10:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks...you do fine, so keep up the good work.--MONGO 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin

You asked me to tell you when I was running for adminship. Partly due to your recent experience, I submitted my application. You can comment on it at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Kizzle --kizzle 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Block

You're welcome--and I understand. I still hope that situation resolves acceptably and fairly to all. Antandrus (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.


For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is wrong. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. —Doug Bell talk 08:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
And this is exactly why I never want to be an admin. "You did good! But wait! NO! You're evil, we're taking your tools. Why? Because of cheese." shakes her head --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Understandable sentiments, but if no one's willing to step forward in the ranks, how will MONGO's role be filled? --tjstrf talk 08:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of other admins.--MONGO 09:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but few that were as conflict-ready as you were. I'm commenting on the general defeatist attitude I've been observing as much as I am Elaragirl's specific statement. --tjstrf talk 10:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It's over and done...I will never seek adminship again, nor will I likely spend much time on this website...life is too short...but on a cool side...I saw 10 Bald Eagles Saturday afternoon on the Platte River..all within about 1 mile of each other. At about this location. No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity...But I know none, and therefore am no beast.--MONGO 08:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The Platte has always been an amazing place for Bald Eagles. A farmer and avid hunter I knew in Lexington used to set out game for them to feed on, and would get 20 or 30 eagles buzzing around his property at any given time. --tjstrf talk 08:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It is as much as a mile wide and only a few feet deep, so one of their preferred food sources (fish) are easily seen. The river is also slow moving and is heavily treed for much of it's length and there are numerous sandbars.--MONGO 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
How's the Platte doing this year? I haven't been back since my family moved to California, and the last time I saw it (summer 2003 iirc) it was running far lower than usual. Those sandbars you speak of were looking more like islands, and it was only 6 inches deep in most places were there was water at all. You could hardly even wade in it. --tjstrf talk 10:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You already know my thoughts MONGO, but the decision is wrong and I do hope you'll consider sticking around at the very least, or preferably accept the numerous offers of nomination and run for admin some time in the future. Best Wishes and Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Even though it has been very dry along the entire watershed, the Platte is flowing fairly high. This image was taken from near Louisville, Nebraska looking west from about this point.
Even though it has been very dry along the entire watershed, the Platte is flowing fairly high. This image was taken from near Louisville, Nebraska looking west from about this point.
  • At the risk of being very unpopular, no the ruling is not actually wrong, it's adequately supported by the findings of fact and it's consistent with previous rulings. What's wrong is that it ever got to that situation in the first place. From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO to this with no evident intervening stages means we have seriously failed somewhere along the way, and MONGO has been hung out to dry as a result. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I do believe the arbitration case named after MONGO was mishandled. Evidently there were serious misgivings and concerns about MONGO's use of admin tools even back then, concerns which were not reflect in the findings. That doesn't give MONGO a free pass, of course, but the ArbCom should've done a better job in chastising everyone involved in that conflict and making it clear that it wasn't to be tolerated. --Cyde Weys 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that is a fair comment. I believe that ArbCom was motivated by an understandable desire not to give succour to trolls. I am trying to think of a way of stopping this happening to others, especially the business of becoming so involved in policing a dispute that you become part of it. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Cyde has struck on a point, I think much of the punishment handed out by ArbCom after this case is to cover their backs for not taking any preventative action with the previous case. BOTH cases have been bungled and ArbCom as it stands today is becoming untenable. If the ArbCom elections weren't running, I would be looking at proposing a totally new system of arbitration for Wikipedia. It's something I'll be working on over Christmas though (for all the good it'll do). Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We wait, we watch. In a few months, when the dust has settled and friend MONGO has had a chance to do what he probably came here for in the first place - edit some articles on things that interest him - we may be able to persuade him to stand again. Maybe we can have the first RFA with 100 co-nominators :-) Guy (Help!) 23:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys...that first arbcom case was first submitted by one who was indefinitely banned from editing...not a one year block, but an indefinite ban. He reappearred to argue against my keeping admin tools in this latest situation as User:XP and that account has now been indefinitely banned. If you take any fairly active admin and cherry-pick the errors, you can compile a case of misfeasence. Arbcom in this latest case failed utterly to demostrate how I actually broke the protection policies, used a block from six months ago and my arguments with a few (yes, a few) admins regarding my block of Miltopia...who anyone with two cents of a clue should be able to see has stalked my edits for purposes of mischief. There finding that I over-react to situations might have some merit, and maybe that is their biggest concern, but they misunderstand the level of adolescent trollery I have had to deal with. I do a lot for others on this website both up front and behind the scenes, yet that gets no notice apparently. Let me put it this way...in the real world, you "screw-up" as little as I did and you get a promotion...on Wikipedia, you get desysopped. Why would any sane person who has been through what I have want to continue to make much effort here? Maybe if I stick around, it means I need to go down to the closest mental institution and commit myself.--MONGO 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey, I can sympathise here. On a much lower level I was running for ArbCom, but a (then) single-purpose account whose POV-pushing I frusttrated completely derailed the thing with the spurious notion that I "mediated" when I should have recused - both the assertion that I should have mediated, and the idea that I should have recused, I strongly dispute, but them's the breaks. Luckily I don't actually care :-) It's really difficult dealing with trolls. I think people are being harsh on ArbCom here, not without reason, and I think having a greater number of active arbs would have helped in both cases. I also feel that ArbCom should have been less hard here, but it must be said that to be less hard would have been inconsistent. What really sucks is that you were left out on a limb. I feel bad about that, and I'm guessing that some of the support you are getting here is motivated by similar feelings. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    JzG: I am not a POV pusher, and I am not a troll. Please stop misrepresenting that dispute. Your candidacy was "derailed" (pun intended?) by your refusal to answer my questions on your question page, and your continued insistence that you did nothing wrong in that dispute. You continue to claim you were not mediating - so why did you call it a "mediation process"? But let's say it wasn't a mediation, and you were just involved as an editor - then why did you threaten to lock the article? Is it appropriate for an admin to threaten to lock an article (twice) during a content dispute? And why do you still refuse to admit that your threat to lock was based on your misreading of a single word? And why do you still refuse to deal with the real troll in this dispute, Avidor, an editor that recently created an article on his arch-nemesis, then voted to delete it two days later, an act which an uninvolved editor called "some of the most ridiculously immature behavior I've experienced on Wikipedia"? And why do you continue to imply that I am alone in opposing your actions in this dispute, when three other editors agree with me ([16], [17], [18])? You have never answered any of these questions, not even when I raised the issue on your candidate talk page ([19]). Now, MONGO, I apologize for cluttering up your talk page with this dispute that has nothing to do with you, but as long as JzG continues to imply that I am a POV pushing troll (even if he doesn't reference me by name), I feel compelled to set the record straight. ATren 10:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Still claiming you're not Wikistalking? You just proved my point re the trolling, by the way. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm watching your edits - to make sure you don't spread lies about me! Is that stalking? I arrived here at MONGO's page because I discovered that you are once again spreading lies (and I can prove they're lies) about our dispute and our respective roles in it. Is it not my right to watch the diffs of an editor who has lied about me in the past and (as the evidence shows here) continues to lie about me? ATren 16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so it's only you who is allowed to spread lies about me. Thank you so much for clearing that up, and acknowledging that you are, in fact, stalking me. I think that concludes this little debate. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No, every claim I made against you was backed by diffs. You not only ignore the diffs I provide (you are still claiming it was not a mediation despite the diff I provided in which you yourself call it a mediation!), but you refuse to provide one iota of evidence against me - likeley because there isn't any! So go ahead, keep lying about me, and I'll keep setting the record straight. Call me a stalker if you want, but I stand by my history and my evidence. ATren 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
...diffs which you then interpret in a way I dispute. And, do you know, you never did get round to admitting even the faintest shade of bias on your own part, even though you were a single-purpose account. But hey, I forgot - bias is other people's opinion, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I "misinterpreted"? So how was I to interpret the phrase "mediation process"? According to you, the correct interpretation is "not a mediation process". Of course, if it was not a mediation, and you were just there as part of a content dispute, then you were way out of bounds threatening to block the other side of the debate. But I'm guessing that if I brought you to arb com for abusing your admin powers, you'd flip-flop right back and claim it was a mediation.
MONGO, again I apologize for cluttering up your talk page, but I cannot let these lies go unchallenged. JzG's reputation is practically unassailable here at Wikipedia, but mine is quite fragile, being a casual editor with only a few hundred edits. I have no choice to defend my reputation against such baseless accusations from someone in a position of such power. ATren 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A mediation process (i.e. a request for mediation) does not mean that every (or indeed any) party involved is a mediator. But whatever. you've made up your mind, and you're not going to change mine. I'm pleased you finally started editing other subjects, anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, my mistake. You weren't mediating - just threatening the use of admin tools to push your POV. ATren 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. I do this to all SPAs, I am an evil rouge admin. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The target of your admin abuse was not a SPA. Take a look at Skybum's edit history leading up to your threat to lock - he was active on dozens of articles before the PRT war. Stop lying, JzG. ATren 15:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous already. No more on this page. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I am still puzzled by the inconsistency between the two cases. I think that ArbCom normally does a good job - I am definitely not one of its usual critics. Its recent handling of the important pseudoscience case was excellent IMO. But I think it made the wrong call this time, in circumstances where doing so has done significant damage. Maybe there's not much we can do, but I'll be one of the hundred nominators if you ever want to run for admin again. It's sad that we've lost an administrator with the courage, energy, and generally sound judgment to take on trolls and POV pushers. If there's ever anything I can ever do to step forward into the breach, by all means draw it to my attention. Metamagician3000 23:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the difference is explained by the parties involved. The original MONGO case was trolls v. MONGO, pretty easy to call. The Sebhcan case was admin v. admin, and raised by one of the warring parties to boot, so it's not too hard to see why ArbCom chose to call it as they did. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This Barnstar is awarded because of your unappreciated work at keeping Wikipedia from turning into Conspiracypedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconded, absolutely. Tom Harrison Talk 20:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should all form the MONGO appreciation society :-) Guy (Help!) 21:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks Zoe, Tom and Jzg. As I've said a few times before, about all I'll be dealing with are a select few of the articles related to 9/11, and even that will be sporatic.--MONGO 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I too can't thank you enough for taking a firm stance against trolling and those who desire to give undue weight to conspiracy "n--sense" --Aude (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree here, thanks MONGO for helping in keeping this project as a respectable one. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Defender

I know of no one here more deserving of this than you, MONGO -- Samir धर्म 01:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I know of no one here more deserving of this than you, MONGO -- Samir धर्म 01:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • MONGO, you are the epitome of the Defender of the Wiki. No one deserves this more than you -- Samir धर्म 01:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you..much appreciated.--MONGO 04:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)









9/11 death toll

Hi. I'm just curious: is there an "official figure" or any cross reference that backs 2997? The number still varies on many reports and documents today, and it seems that CNN is one of the very few that list that number. I used to work for the Port Authority and we know the death toll as 2996 (after one person who had been missing and presumed dead was found institutionalized almost a couple of years after the attack). The september11victims.com may be an outside source but is a trusted one so it's not fair to call the figure "incorrect" (and for that matter CNN.com - which by the way lists a few incorrect of figures here and there on its 9/11 related stories - is also an outside source). And then there's Project 2996. Even the 9/11 Commission Report avoids to state the figure by saying " More than 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center; 125 died at the Pentagon; 256 died on the four planes. The death toll surpassed that at Pearl Harbor in December 1941." Any idea? Insomniacpuppy 06:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the number that is most often cited is 2,973 total[20], [21], [22]...but I don't think that includes the 19 hijackers. I can't dispute what you have said above and I think that being precise is very important, but I doubt we will ever know excatly how many died as there were surely a few that no one knew, even an illegal resident or two are likely. Feel free to revert to what version you think is best and or bring discussion to the article talkpage.--MONGO 08:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kudos + Global Warming Conspiracy Theorists

Hey MONGO,

I went to a MoveOn showing of An inconvenient truth a few nights ago, and it had a lot of info on Glacier Retreat. I checked the article, and see that you started it, and have been a major contributor. It's a wonderful article Mongo, and seeing how Al Gore 'invented' The Internets, and spends a lot of time online, I bet he's seen it too! So, on behalf of Al Gore and the millions of environmental activists, and just plain folks, who will become even more active in the fight against Global Warming because of your hard work - I say THANKS!!

I understand that some conspiracy theorists claim that the glaciers are growing, not retreating! Other conspiracy theorists claim all kinds of hooey about global warming, like it doesn't exist, or might even be good for the planet - some even say it's all a socialist disinfo plot to hurt the USA! Wow! Have you encountered any of these conspiracy theories or theorists here on Wiki? I trust they're not trying to spread these conspiracy theories here, with you around, and I hope you'll challenge them if they do! Will you? Cheers! - F.A.A.F.A. 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I found some, I went to a meeting in Manhattan by the village to push for Democratic support in local election and many of the candidates actually admitted to not thinking Global Warming was a major issue or dire. They didn't say that glaciers were growing, just felt that them melting wasnt dire. The movie was great by the way, I have a copy I came across but am expecting the DVD this christmas from my girlfriend. Its quite sad when you think about it, and realize that global warming most likely contributed to the hurricane that over flowed the levee's. I guess the real problem, is people are just passive about it, Dems and Reps. Its not like any of our leaders are driving around in hybrids, none that I know of. Do you know of any FAAFA? Again, great movie to bad Gore didn't stick to the environment when he ran, I may have actually voted for him. --NuclearZer0 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, arbcom for sebhcan is done! What do you say about another ARBCOM?

Well, the furour seems to have hit and the anxiety is finally cooling down regarding the Sebhcan case. It has now been more than 19 days since I first heard about the allegations of cplot and the conflict that existed inbetween you, cplot and the 9/11 article. Cplot is however still banned because it appears cplot may be sockpuppeteering... Nevertheless the original ban is still questionable (according to me). Would you feal ready to discuss this problem, as I have requested in the past, or since you have been desysoped perhaps there is nothing you can do about it anyway and we may have to go to ARBCOM to try and solve this one? --CyclePat 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cplot was reblocked by Tom harrison (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), and if he hadn't done it, I would have. You have no issue here any more. Thatcher131 03:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat, do what you think you need to do.--MONGO 05:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know Pat, I'll try and talk him out of it, it will be a waste of his time and everyone else's. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No, don't do that...he has a right to file an arbitration case if he wants...I don't need anyone to protect me from him or anyone else...thanks.--MONGO 23:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving the {{fac}} tag for me on September 11, 2001 attacks. It's the first time I've nominated an article, and I didn't read the directions carefully enough. Do you have any suggestions on how we could make it a little more prominent on the talk page? I worry that it will be lost in the slew of boxes at the top of the page, and no one will realize the article has been nominated or bother to comment. Perhaps there's nothing that can be done about it... —PurpleRAIN 17:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it could be placed at the top of the talkpage.--MONGO 23:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries. It was pointed out to me that the article is not stable enough to become a Featured Article anyway, so it's pretty much moot. —PurpleRAIN 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Note

Just a note: check the message on Riana's RAOK barnstar. :-) — Editor at Large(speak) 09:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar!

Actually it was not an act of kindness but a case of a WP:SPADE: I called the wrong decision wrong, if I had thought it was right I would probably told so. I, personally, have no editorial interest in American politics or in the parasitic websites, but if you will feel that an administrative action in that area is due, then I am usually onwiki the best half of a day Alex Bakharev 10:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I also want to thank you also for my barnstar. You have far more courage and tenacity than most of us (myself included) have. And thank you for all you have done for the project! --rogerd 15:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What rogerd said. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Me too! :-) -- Donald Albury 13:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you back

For being a good defender of liberty and freedom. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
For being a good defender of liberty and freedom. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey mate. Nice to see you back at the scene. Good decision. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...but my efforts will be very limited for some time, but I do appreciate the support.--MONGO 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, first let me say that you have great courage. You have dealt with tribulation that I think would discourage the most courageous among us. And yet your presence here is a testament of what a true warrior’s bravery is. I thank you for standing tall and continuing forward. It is a great inspiration for us all. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see you back. I was coming to give you a resiliency barnstar, but see you already have three in as many days, so will hold off on mine. I am still happy that you can stick around after an overreaction from the arbcom. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

9/11: The Big Lie

I have now totally revamped/stubified this article in order to deal with the POV issues. Please take a look at the new version if you like. Thanks, Bwithh 08:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion because it is spam advertising, not because I was concerned about it being POV.--MONGO 16:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That Waterboarder fellow

Probably a denizen of Democrat Warrior. And isn't it odd how he came along shortly after you left a certain message on a certain user's talk page? Vedy interestink. Jinxmchue 05:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tiring

I didn't mischaracterize anything, and I didn't insult you. You insulted your fellow editors by accusing them of profiteering and having ulterior motives - serious charges which you now refuse to prove. I suggest you not repeat your actions again. - F.A.A.F.A. 15:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, he did no such thing and your continued mischaracterization is a violations of AGF. Reread what he wrote, consult a dictionary and grammar reference, and then come back and apologize. --Tbeatty 00:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully you'll choose your words more carefully next time Mongo. Numerous other editors commented that they did not feel the articles were 'spam' nor 'advertising'. Pehaps you meant to say that the editors had a 'conflict of interest' by being 'too close to the subject'. Many articles and editors suffer from this. I've certainly noticed it with many of the articles on politicians - the article on Bush comes to mind. Merry Xmas, by the way. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll: External timeline in 911 attacks article

Since you have been involved with the 911 attacks article in the past, you might be interested in voting in a straw poll on an external timeline currently used in the article. [23] . Thanks. Abe Froman 18:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external link matter. [24] Thanks. Abe Froman 17:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted article returns

I nominated Cinco de Ocho for Proposed deletion and then left the note on the users page. I then looked at the users contributions and discovered that this page was already deleted once. Notice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinco de Ocho. I checked this users contributions and could not find any useful work done. Thanks, --Droll 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it for you with speedy-G4 --rogerd 06:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for AfD

You were recently responsible for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Pearl Harbor. However it is quite clear from the wording of your proposal that you did not make even a minimal effort to test your personal opinion of the book against the criteria laid down in Wikipedia:Notability (books). If you had done so you would have had no trouble ascertaining that the author is a highly respected academic and that therefore, because he is notable in his own right by Wikipedia standards, so are his books.

Your oversight is particularly hard to understand considering that, as an editor, you have demonstrated a particular interest in the area of 9/11, "conspiracy theory" etc, about which you obviously have a great deal to say. I find it incomprehensible how someone with even a modicum of knowledge of the field could have failed to know a fact as elementary as that David Ray Griffin is an eminent theologian and philosopher.

Moreover the argument you gave to support your AfD proposal in this case appears consistent with the reasoning you have given to support your "delete" votes in other recent AfD discussions in that it appears to be based entirely on personal prejudice without regard to the actual facts of the matter or to Wikipedia policy. When these deletions succeed they destroy the hard work of other editors. And because there appear to be a great number of editors who seem to take the same attitude that you do to these articles, other, more circumspect editors find themselves tied up trying to prevent these very destructive proposals from succeeding.

Let me make this very clear. Arbitrary and capricious AfD proposals are an insult to the hard work of other editors. They are also a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia and are equivalent to book burning. I trust, now that you are aware of the destructive consequences of such proposals, that you will in future desist from initiating or supporting them without having taken reasonable steps to establish that such a proposal is reasonable.

Moreover I trust that from now on, being more mindful of the sincere effort that other editors have put into creating those articles to which you object, that you will make earnest efforts to avoid destroying the fruits of their work whenever possible. This will include, but not be limited to, notifying those editors who have made significant contributions to those articles of your intent so that they may have the opportunity to defend their own work, and merging the article content into other articles, rather than deleting it outright, whenever that is possible (which it nearly always is). Ireneshusband 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Capricious? I nominated the article for deletion as I saw it to be advertising. I will continue to make all efforts to reduce, and if possible eliminate, all attempts in article space to provide an advertising platform for conspiracy theory rhetoric, books and other medium.--MONGO 05:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The article contains a criticism section with a link to a detailed rebuttal of the article. It also refers to "conspiracy theorists", a phrase that is commonly used to discredit views such as those contained in the book. You may think that because, by some oversight, WP:DP fails to define "advertising", you are free to define it any way you like to suit your purpose, but no reasonable person could possibly accept that an article containing elements that paint its subject matter in such a negative light could be described as advertising. Ireneshusband 18:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay dokie...the article, by it's very existence, acts as an advertisment. I see no reason to provide advertisement space for those who are trying to profit by spreading misconceptions and lies at the expense of almost 3 thousand murdered human beings...good day.--MONGO 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:Spam fails to define advertising. You seem to think this gives you license to define the word any way that suits you. Unfortunately for you this encyclopedia is the English language version of Wikipedia and all the policies are written in contemporary English. Moreover, they are written in English as it is spoken now and not 400 years ago.
The online version of the OED has only one non-obsolete definition of "advertising" and it is this:

A bringing into notice; spec. by paid announcement in a printed journal, by prominent display of placards, etc.

All the cited examples of this usage clearly refer to paid advertising with the single possible exception of the earliest (Goldsmith, 1762), which refers instead to "self-advertising" and does not specify whether this refers to self-advertising for commercial purposes.
The other definition offered in the OED,

Warning, notification, information.

which is the only definition that even remotely accords with your personal definition of advertising, is labelled "Obs." (obsolete). The last cited usage of this kind is from 1549 and is. in any case, a Scots usage rather than an English one. Therefore this usage of the word is incorrect in contemporary English. Because this usage is incorrect in contemporary English, it is not legitimate to apply it to the interpretation of Wikipedia policies.
Because English Wikipedia is written in contemporary English, your assertion that the article is advertising amounts to a declaration that the content of the article was paid for either by or on behalf of the publisher. This means that the article was either copied from advertising material or that it was paid for directly by the publising company or its agents.
Now the article in its current form has not changed much since its original version, as written by User:Fsotrain09. Therefore, if the article was copied from the publisher's own publicity material, we should expect to find such publicity material, or at least references to it, by googling random phrases from this original version of the article. However such a google search does not turn up any such material.
Therefore, since the article was clearly not plagiarised from existing publicity materials, your assertion that it is "advertising" amounts to an assertion that Fsotrain09 was paid to write it. Since you undoubtedly did not mean to say that I am sure you will have no hesitation in putting the whole matter to rights by apologising personally to Fsotrain09 for unwittingly denigrating her work and her character in this way. You will also no doubt apologise to every editor whose work and character you have, due to the many similar unfortunate misunderstandings that have occurred during the current article burning campaign, unwittingly insulted in the same way.
Furthermore, now that you correctly understand the meaning of "advertising" in contemporary English, I have every confidence that you will, as an honourable Wikipedian, vote against any future AfD proposals that rely on such entirely false claims that the article in question is "advertising". Ireneshusband 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Gee...that's a lot of hostility you have there. Please see our policy on civility and also my rationale for deletion of the article and Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. I'm sure that we don't have 9,573 articles for books that are better sellers than The New Pearl Harbor according to Amazon [25]...so what makes this one so important? Nothing, aside from those who will have something to lose by not having the book mentioned on Wikipedia...in other words...profit. I see that article as acting as an add...the google query on the book links to the Wiki article within the first 10 links[26]! Wikipedia is not in the business of providing a webhosting service for books and other medium that are based on false evidence....unless you want to start writing articles for the almost 10,000 books that are better sellers according to Amazon....then maybe I would see our job on Wiki is to be an advertising platform.--MONGO 10:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
There are indeed a great many noteworthy subjects that have not yet been addressed by wikipdedia. That fact does not make those that have already been addressed any less noteworthy. It is the business of wikipedia to cover noteworthy topics, such as any book by a highly respected academic, which this book most certainly is. This is perfectly clearly stated in Wikipedia policy. It is not the business of any editor of Wikipedia to decide that a particular topic should not be covered based on his or her own personal political, moral or religious convictions.
It is not for individual editors to decide what is true and what is false. NPOV is a fundamental and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia. If you feel it is important for people to understand that the arguments presented in the book are false, then it is up to you to edit the article to include the views of reputable sources who think like you do.
That google lists this article towards the top of its search results for New Pearl Harbor is google's business. It is not Wikipedia's business to tailor its content to influence search engine results. That said, the fact that the article features at the top of a total of around 226,000 results for "new pearl harbor" is a clear indication that very large numbers of people do want to know what this book is about, and that a great many of them look to Wikipedia, rather than the 9/11 Truth Movement, to provide this information, presumably because they want to be able to understand the positions of both sides and make their minds up for themselves. Why shouldn't they be able to do this? All you would have had to do to ensure the article represented your side of the argument fairly would have been a bit of research and editing. Ireneshusband 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It is incumbent on every editor of Wikipedia to improve the encyclopedia. Inserting material into Wikipedia to promote a book, a website, or a particular theory is not abiding by our neutral point of view policy, as well as our policy on what Wikipedia is not. Such promotional material should be removed whenever and wherever found. -- Donald Albury 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved from center of page

please see: talk: The New Pearl Harbor — Xiutwel (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Article discussion pages are to discuss the articles, not the editors...if you have a complaint, then simply leave it here. Pease post new comments at the bottom of talkpages...thanks.--MONGO 12:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

PS : I did wasn't aware, when I wrote this, that you had so much stuff going on. — Xiutwel (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear MONGO and Morton, I believe it is apparent from your contributions in AfD debates that you violently oppose certain articles which "advertise for non notable subjects". It is also apparent to me that this comes forth from your political standpoint, that 911 happened just as the official version tells us it happened. Since you are emotionally involved with the issue, I would ask you to take extra care not to accidently violate the guidelines, principles and aims of wikipedia in the process when dealing with such matters. For me, all of internet is advertising. Amazon.com will praise any book they sell. The only place which is not advertising is wikipedia. It is a place where people of opposite viewpoints can reach consensus, not on the subject of dissent, but on a fair representation of dissent. If you succeed in banning notable books from wikipedia, it is you who is creating two Walled Gardens: the ones loving such a book, and the ones hating such a book. The reasonable, balanced judgement of wikipedia is lost. I would very much love it when you would coöperate more with those editors with whom you dissent. Also I would welcome your contributions on:
  • Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes
— Xiutwel (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

— Xiutwel (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Violently oppose"? "It is also apparent to me that this comes forth from your political standpoint, that 911 happened just as the official version tells us it happened."...I don't see anything violent by nominating an article for deletion! My politcal standpoint has zero to do with being able to know facts when I see them! My "emotional involvement", as you put it, has not led me to violate any guideline or policy in any matter related to this issue, so your implication is without merit, and much like the above comment immediately above this one, erroneous and borderline incivil.--MONGO 12:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

 Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re:Dental Floss

Thanks for the support with SoLongBaby's edit warring on Dental Floss. Ginkgo100 and I don't think much can be done about the situation [27]. If you have other ideas, I'm certainly open to them. --Ronz 06:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

9/11 book AfD

Hello Mongo, I'm Fsotrain09, the apparent originator of the "9/11:The New Pearl Harbor" article. I hope that I don't cast more aspersion on my motives by telling you that I honestly do not recall writing the article. I did browse through the article series on the 9/11 Truth Movement, and so I think the material in all probability came from there. I just wanted to let you know that a) I was not paid or compelled to write or post the article, I'm just a college student b) that I actually support your contention that the article has POV and notability problems, and so c) I would support the opening of another AfD, and would move to "Delete" in any such discussion. Please feel free to reply on my talk page if you have any further concerns. Thank you! -Fsotrain09 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not once told anyone that any editor that wrote that article on that book is a a profiteer...I have stated clearly that the article on Wiki, by it's very existence is an ad...that is the way it is...whether Ireneshusband, {who erroneously thought you were the original writer of the article because he failed to check the full editing history of that article), believes or not. He has deliberately misplaced my completely within policy rationale for deletion of some sort of trial, and at this point, his commentary on my talk page and elsehwere is becoming harassment. I never reopen an Afd very soon after one just fails to end with a deletion vote, so it would be best to not do so in hte near future. A merge to the author's article might be in order though. Happy New Year!--MONGO 20:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Are things proceeding nicely here at the wiki? I stopped by while doing research and made a few minor edits; I thought it nice to see how you were doing before I returned to other things. I see I had to log in to post on your talk; is everything okay? -Randall Brackett 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much the usual stuff...glad to see you're still around.--MONGO 21:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No...I merely waited to see a reply from an old friend. As usual, I see there has been an rfar case (amoung other things); several editors I admired have departed the project, as have I. I'm very sorry to see what happened to your mop and bucket. :(
Whether you depart the project or remain, I believe we can proudly say we've made very productive contributions to this website, all things considered. I'm glad to see you're still here, doing things the MONGO way. ;)-Randall Brackett 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
As have you...if you reconsider and decide to continue here, let me know how I might be able to help...anyway, Happy New Year!--MONGO 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. I have college to worry about, currently. It was lovely talking with you. -Randall Brackett 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and Happy New Year. -Randall Brackett 22:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)