Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] MONGO

Final (123/103/21); Closed by WjBscribe as consensus not reached at 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

MONGO (talk · contribs) - I've decided that I would enjoy being an administrator again and I am asking for your support. I was desysopped by the arbitration committee at the conclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan over a year ago. I would like to be able to demonstrate that I have learned from past mistakes and instead set an example that other admins can follow. For the 13 months I was an administrator previously, I performed over 3,500 administrative actions, most of them speedy deletions. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for three years and have about 38,000 edits across numerous namespaces. I've contributed numerous articles and have helped get eight of them to featured level. I also upload images to Commons where I have released almost all of them to the public domain. Why do I want the tools? I am only able to contribute for a few hours a day anymore, and I find myself doing primarily admin related work such as vandalism reversion and similar chores. Article writing takes more time for research than I am currently able to set aside, but with the hour here and there I have, I can still help with copyvios, speedy deletions and blocking egregious vandals. I hope you'll allow me to serve the community as an administrator once again. Thank you, MONGO

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Primarily the same things I did in the past, which were helping clean out the backlogs for speedy deletions, blocking obvious vandals and assisting other editors in various details that only an administrator is able to perform.

"follow-up Q' do you think that there is now a backlog in speedy deletions? DGG (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear there is at present...has than been the case for awhile now? I haven't checked that listing (except just now) in some time is why I ask.--MONGO 11:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I started 4 featured articles and was a major contributor on another 4. I am most pleased with Retreat of glaciers since 1850, Yellowstone fires of 1988 and Shoshone National Forest. I also started the WikiProject Glaciers and am active with numerous other projects as I have time.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been involved in numerous conflicts and there have been times I have felt stressed by these events. There have been times I have been less civil than I should have been, or, as some have suggested, a bit overly reactionary. I was involved in long standing conflict involving one off-wiki website, most of which is documented in Requests for arbitration/MONGO...there, one editor was indefinitely banned. I have also been in various disagreements regarding the level of coverage of September 11, 2001 conspiracy theories that should be permissible in our article space. I believe I have made major improvements in how I communicate with those that want more coverage of these conspiracy theories and I try hard to discuss the merits of the arguments and not the editors...but I do find myself being called a POV pusher and other things, though my stance has always been to document only the known evidence that can be reliably sourced. I will do all I can to ensure the editing environment is calm and pleasant if at all possible.

4. I'm almost afraid to ask, but do you intend to make yourself open for recall if promoted again? Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

In all honesty, I haven't decided that one yet. I would accept, as I certainly do now, the voice of the community as far as whether I am "fit" to be an administrator. The admin tools to me are just a way to help manage the website, not some kind of power trip. If they were THAT important to me, I wouldn't have waited more than a year to try and regain my adminship. So, yes, I would submit to the will of the community, but not sure I would list myself outright as an admin open to recall.--MONGO 04:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

5. I am sorry, I don't mean to make you uncomfortable, but for those of us who find the size of the ARBCOMM discussion that de-sysopped you daunting, could you give us a 25-word summary of what the objections were? You wrote, above, that you accept there were lessons for you to learn from that experience. Would you care to summarize any of them? Use more than 25 words if you like. Geo Swan (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by objections...do you mean objections to me being deadminned? There were numerous editors who were disturbed by it...I know that Doug Bell left the websight came back and then left again because of what happened to me...I know Durin was also pretty perplexed. Lessons learned...firstly, I did a bad block on a fellow I had been in a content dispute with. I also had a disagreement with a couple of other admins...the first was Genteen, who reverted my indefinite block of Miltopia without either talking to me first or gaining consensus on a noticeboard to do his unblock...I never once wheel warred, so even in this situation, I did not reblock him. Miltopia was ultimately indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales not so long ago. I also learned that even if you have made no or even any recent edits to a page, you must ask a neutral third party or go to RFPP before you protect/unprotect a page. When asked about my impending deadminning...Radiant offered his analysis on the cited rationale that arbcom based part of the decision making to desysop me here...anyway...I didn't go berserk about it. The arbitration committee has a tough enough job and I know they were faced with numerous questions regarding their decision. I think at the time, based on what was going on, that their decision was just. I took a little bit of a break and resumed adding content including several more FA's.--MONGO 07:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

6. I ask all candidates whose {{rfa}} I participate in about their commitment to WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NPA and WP:BITE. My own view is that administrators have a greater responsibility to comply with WP:CIV and related policies -- because they should be setting an example. Unfortunately, in my experience, there is an significant minority of our current corp of administrators who appear to think being granted administrator authority frees them from the obligation to be civil. Maybe you have already stated this in your answer to question 3 -- but would you please go on record as committing yourself to committing yourself to doing your best to set a good example of being civil? I am not singling you out. I ask all candidates this. Geo Swan (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems that the bulk of those opposing me are indicating that I am chronically incivil. Not to come across as a total meathead, but I can't imagine how so many could be mistaken about me....so their assessment must be correct. Yes, civility is paramount and must be maintained at all times, without qualification. I think the key to it is trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes...examine what they are saying and why before one responds and hits that save button. This is perhaps my biggest problem...our best editors, the ones who don't allow themselves to be baited, don't allow themselves to slip, up are the examples I must follow if I am to regain the respect of the community. Even when someone posts a comment such as the one made here...the best thing to do is ignore it.--MONGO 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

7. Another question I ask in all {{rfa}}s in which I participate -- there are a couple of related qualities that are unfortunately too rare in real life, and, sadly, too rare here on the wikipedia. I respect people who can consider the possibility that they made a mistake. I respect people who can recognize when they made a mistake, and publicly acknowledge it. I am sorry to report that, in my experience, some of our fellow wikipedians react with anger when their judgment is questioned -- even if that challenge is civil. And I am sorry to report our current corps of administrators includes a minority who react badly when their judgment is questiond -- even when those challenges are civil. If we entrust you with administrator authority can we count on you doing your best to bear in mind that, like ordinary mortals you are fallible, and consider the possibility that challengers may have found a legitimate mistake? If you realize you made a mistake, can we count on you acknowledging it? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't disagree with this. In the extremely unlikely event I was to ever regain my adminship, there isn't anything I would ever do that would be grounds to have the tools forceably removed again. I sure don't want to have to go through that ever again. I am really disturbed by the oppose vote by one fellow who has come out of retirement just to make his statement here about my Rfa. Looking back on why he would bother to do this, it is pretty clear...he tried repeatedly to work out a compromise with me and I rebuffed him each time. He wasn't an admin and I was, and I now know what it is like to be ignored or treated condescendingly by admins I have questioned since I lost my tools. His oppose vote is the most distressing of them all because I know I treated his requests for me to explain my actions not with empathy, but with overt hostility, a complete lack of good faith and an unwillingness to discuss his concerns about my actions with him. I hope someday I get the chance to work things out with him. I can't guarantee I won't make a mistake, but I can tell you that I would do my best to cooperate fully with anyone who would question one of my admin actions or my performance.--MONGO 07:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

• See MONGO's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for MONGO: MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MONGO before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

• A lot of opposers are using variations on the argument "gets into too many disputes". Of course he gets into disputes -- he edits extensively on the September 11, 2001 attacks, which is probably the most divisive political issue of our times. Should we deny adminship to everyone who edits in that area? And isn't "gets into too many disputes" just a variation on the "too controversial to be an admin" argument? szyslak 11:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Were the "disputes" and "mishandling of tools" related to just that article in particular? Rudget. 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • They were related to that group of articles. szyslak 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite popular opinion, it is actually possible to work on controversial articles and still behave yourself. It's not easy, but working on controversial articles is not an acceptable reason to behave badly. I have not investigated the particular issues involved here, so I'm just speaking generally. So as long as people are referring to the user's part in adding to the controversy, then referring to being in a lot of them is not a poor argument. - Taxman ^Talk 02:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I absolutely agree that you still have to "behave yourself" if you work in areas of controversy on Wikipedia. And in my view, MONGO behaves himself. I wasn't making excuses for MONGO; I was just pointing out what a weak argument "gets into too many disputes" is, in and of itself. What makes or breaks an adminship candidate lies in how they handle the disputes, not how many disagreements they run into. There are many excellent administrators who "get into a lot of disputes" in inherently controversial subject areas, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Lyndon LaRouche and Scientology; yet they still handle themselves well. Examples who stand out for me include Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Will Beback. (Not that they or anyone else never make mistakes, of course.) Imagine if their RFAs failed based on the "gets into too many disputes" argument. Just think how much the encyclopedia would lose, without such editors standing up for NPOV. Nobody likes disputes, but we can't always avoid them. We have policies and guidelines like WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but there's no such policy as "WP:Don't get into disagreements, and just smile and nod while aggressive editors with extreme POVs run ramshod over the encyclopedia...". What really sets MONGO apart is that he is not afraid to deal with 9/11 "truther" POV warriors, while other editors would shrink away. szyslak 09:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I think people just don't consider someone making a complaint against an admin (which happens all the time to any admin doing anything even slightly controversial) as a "dispute", it only becomes a dispute when the admin starts to retaliate, with MONGO invariably does. --Tango (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I know nothing of MONGO's history as an administrator, or as an editor. But one of correspondents above seems to be implying that with hard-core POV pushers it may be OK for those trying to make sure our policies are followed can relax, or perhaps need to relax, their own compliance with our civility policies. I hope my impression is mistaken. If it is isn't I would like to read one of those discussions where correspondent thinks civility could be dispensed with. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• For those interested in a shorter summary of the "objections" to the ArbCom decision, here are some links that I feel adequately summarize that point of view (first link is to a summary by myself and subsequent discussion):
  • Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision#Unprotection?
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Radiant#Question from Zoe
• --Renesis (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pleased that some of MONGO's recent comments show a degree of self-awareness that did not appear to be present in his earlier behavior, and perhaps a sincere change of heart where he realizes the problems with the way he acted before and intends to change. It's not enough to get me to switch from opposing him now, but things might be different by the time he next attempts to seek adminship, if he does. I don't hold long-term grudges, so I would support him next time if he acted in a way that I thought deserved it, regardless of my past feelings. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. Support Proud to be the first to support. Long-time contributor whose edits have clearly been a net benefit to the project. I think most of the issues of the past have been resolved and I honestly do not believe that he ever deserved to have his adminship revoked by AbrCom. Regardless in his time as admin he did alot to help clear backlogs and considering his consistent editing to the project since then I believe he would be helpful in those tasks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - Darn it, not the first support. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Time to get back in the saddle. east.718 at 08:05, January 19, 2008
4. Support -- knows this place better than most. - Longhair\^talk 08:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - clearly been around. can be trusted. good at 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Solid contributor. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support The fact that he sticks with this project after going through so much turmoil shows how devoted he is to bettering Wikipedia. I'm confident he will not repeat the same mistakes again, which weren't severe enough to merit desysopping to begin with. szyslak 11:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Addendum: I've reviewed his recent exchange with Alison, a user I hold in high esteem. Even though I strongly disagree with his comments, I continue to support, because I don't think he committed such a grave offense that he is no longer a trusted member of our community. Please note that my continued support should not be taken as an attack on Alison or an endorsement of MONGO's rather extreme views on the BADSITES issue. (For the record, (a) I do not support the rejected WP:BADSITES proposal, and (b) I don't object to Alison's participation in Wikipedia Review. Her excellent work here is not diminished just because she chooses to participate in a badly-run website that doesn't deal with its trolls effectively.) szyslak 12:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

   It could be argued that we are all participating in a "badly-run website that doesn't deal with its trolls effectively" at the moment, so I agree that shouldn't be held against anyone. :) MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

8. Support A genuinely good contributor, who has hopefully learned from his previous experiences. Throwawayhack (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
9. I'm willing to give him another try. Grandmasterka 13:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support with pleasure. Mongo's a great editor and admin, and a very decent person. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support An extremely devoted contributor. Does all he can to help Wikipedia. Captain panda 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support -- longstanding contributor. --Asterion^talk 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Mainly due to experience. GDonato (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - User:Dorftrottel 14:29, January 19, 2008

    See here for details on my reasoning. The essentials are that MONGO has an attitude and that's a good thing. We need more people who have demonstrated an uncompromising wilingness to vouch for encyclopedic standards and the ability to quickly and reliably discern edits of merit. To me, MONGO's contrib history shows both many times over and this far outweighs any past mistakes. User:Dorftrottel 21:28, January 19, 2008

16. I have not always agreed with MONGO, but I think the Arbcom was wrong to desysop in that case, and MONGO has done a good job in keeping the 9/11 conspiracy theorists at bay. Try to be a bit more diplomatic in your wording though (speak softly and carry a big stick etc.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Absolutely. —Cryptic 14:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Anyone can learn from their mistakes, and I believe that MONGO has done so. Deserves another chance. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Strong Support Most definitely. Best of luck to you, MONGO! GlassCobra 15:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Strong Support There's no doubt that MONGO can be gruff at times; but, he's much tamer than many who still wield the mop. He undeniably has the project's best interests at heart, and has the drive and experience to handle tougher tasks than most. Giving him the mop again would greatly benefit the project. Xoloz (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Wikipedia needs more administrators willing to stop the pushing of nationalistic POV, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and original research. This is a difficult job that often creates controversy. However, with MONGO's experience, I think he will be extremely careful not to repeat any past mistakes. We give editors many extra chances. MONGO deserves a second chance too. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Support Willing to defend Wikipedia against troublemakers and nationalists, hopefully of all stripes. Adminship is no big deal. Lawrence Cohen 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC) #:Change to oppose, see below. Lawrence Cohen 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

22. Support He works hard to improve Wikipedia and believes in our goals. Deserves another opportunity to serve as an administrator.Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Support great contributor to the project, extremely dedicated in the face of stiff opposition and harassment in the past. Most would have abandoned the project by now under similar circumstances. After all that, I don't know why he would want to be an admin again, but if he's willing, I wish him the best of luck. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Support. A fine editor who definitely deserves and should get the tools.--Samiharris (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong support per Xoloz. ElinorD (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Support, great user with loads of edits. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 16:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Support, with the comment for the record that the candidate (like any other administrator) should not use the tools with respect to areas where he is personally involved in a dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. For the reasons stated by Dual Freq. Neutral Good (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. MONGO has my full confidence. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    This RFA has been useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the BADSITES-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with. (Sound familiar?) *Dan T.* (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

30. Support; experienced, sane, and possesses loads of common sense. Antandrus (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Strong Support - Will definitely help the project with the tools. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
32. MONGO has always had my confidence. He continues to have my support. Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
33. Support, MONGO has my confidence and support as well. Good person, good editor. Dreadstar † 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
34. Support - I belive MONGO has learnt lessons from past mistakes and will once again make a fine administrator on the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I agree with Xoloz. Mongo has produced some regrettable diffs but I think he's doing the right thing on a lot of articles, when you really get down to it. --W.marsh 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
36. Yes. Mercury at 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
37. Yes of course. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
38. I strongly support this nomination: MONGO is a great user: he's a brilliant content contributor, an effective user, and, despite what the opposition says, I've found him to be civil and kind. He cares a lot, and stands up to trolls and other bullies and cowards, and hasn't let them drive him off the project. Him being an admin again will be positive, and I don't believe he'll abuse the tools at all. Acalamari 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Indeed, I do encourage editors to read the thread Alison has referred to here for convenience. Read it through, especially what Mongo is saying and I think you'll agree that instead of "massive assumptions of bad faith" you'll find him bending over backwards to AGF. It wasn't Mongo who supplied the heat (such as there was) to that conversation. Mongo, while outspoken, has done significant good for Wikipedia. You don't have to be an admin to do good surely, but I think Mongo has reached the point where he understands the boundaries and will be fine. The Arbcom decision was borderline, and even Jimbo said at the time that he would support Mongo in the future. He was speaking as an editor obviously at the time, so take that for what it's worth to you. In the end, the questions is whether Mongo will be a net gain as an admin and whether he is likely to abuse the tools. At this point I think it's clear enough that he has a good enough understanding of tools not to abuse them and so would certainly be a net gain. Unfortunately there will be some opposes here based on content issues (especially 9/11 conspiracy theory related)...hopefully editors can see through those. RxS (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
40. Support per above. --Filll (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
41. Support - the conversation with Alison below is somewhat disturbing, but I think MONGO does a lot of good work and there's no reason whatsoever to believe he would abuse the tools. --B (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
42. Support Known this editor for awhile. Mongo is a good contributor. He did his best in the face of pov pushers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists when most editors would have thrown in the towel. I believe in second chances. We all make mistakes. I believe Mongo has learned from them and will make a better admin from the knowledge he has gained.--Ѕandahl 19:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
43. SUPPORT John Reaves 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. I have only good experience with him. - Darwinek (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
45. Support --Duk 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
46. Support, I believe this individual to be a net asset to the project. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. Yes, MONGO is controversial and has strong opinions. This is in many ways a good thing, since it demonstrates his genuine passion for the project, as well as his essential honesty. But more to the point: the fact that someone is argumentative and opinionated is not in itself a reason to oppose them for adminship, as long as they don't abuse the admin tools to pursue a personal agenda. MONGO did not systematically abuse the admin tools, and, as pointed out above, there are many current admins whose use of the tools has been far more controversial. What I gather from the arbitration case is that, on one occasion, he got into a conflict with another admin, flew off the handle and performed a couple of dodgy sysop actions, and the ArbCom decided to desysop both of them to appear even-handed (and possibly pour encourager les autres). Given his long record of good admin actions, a sound history of service to the encyclopedia, and the long period of time which has elapsed since his desysopping, I think we can trust him to be a sysop again. I should also add, briefly, that I fully understand his passion for the BADSITES policy, given that he's been a victim of harassment on ED (which is a truly repugnant site; unlike WR et al., which have some genuine claim to be reviewing Wikipedia and its problems, ED is basically a trollish slanderfest which is almost certainly going to be sued for libel at some point). Walton^One 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
48. Support, as someone who knows how to use the tools effectively and yet has had to work without them for more than a year now, MONGO is highly likely to use them with care and carefully avoid violating policy on the proper use of admin tools. So a return of them seems to be a good idea and beneficial to the project. NoSeptember 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. Mongo has paid dearly enough for his one error which, in light of later developments, was not as bad as it might have seemed at the time. He should be reinstated. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
50. Support No questions, no doubts. •Jim62sch• 21:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
51. Support, for a couple of reasons: a) on principle, I'll take someone who has learned from his/her mistakes over anyone who doesn't think that he/she is capable of making any - and he is very clearly wiser from his experience; b) nobody seems to be arguing with his ability to be prudent when he wants to be; I read Alison's complaint below, and I'm not impressed. MONGO has every right to question the participation of people in WR, and he was very civil in his reservations and disagreements. I would urge him to take a deep breath when he finds himself on one side of a contentious issue. But if we were to clip the wings of everyone who got too passionate about issues, there wouldn't be many editors left here, and the articles wouldn't be as good. --Leifern (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. MONGO's a guy with integrity but with a short fuse. I'll support that kind of admin over the mealy mouths any day. He's also never gotten enough credit for his devoted defense of WP:FRINGE, a sludge where too few admins are willing to get their feet wet. Frutti di Mare (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
53. MONGO is one of the most dedicated editors in the project, and was harrassed by severe trolls and such and keeps on editing. Tools should have never been removed from him. Proud to support Secret ^account 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - trustworthy editor. Disagree with Alison's comments. Addhoc (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
55. Support - Overall a strong addition to the fray.--Cberlet (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - There are many administrators who are worse. Doesn't seem fair to have a higher standard to acquire the tools than there is to retain the tools. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    A current admin as bad as MONGO wouldn't lose their tools, and he won't mess up in the same way again. So why not let him have the tools? -Amarkov moo! 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

57. Support per above --kingboyk (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
58. Support Mongo. Sarah 23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Yahel Guhan 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
60. Support. He's learned his lesson. Let the community forgive him. Samurai Commuter (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    nb. above editor has total 85 edits, first edit 08.01.01. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

61. Strong support per all of the above and, to be honest, most of the below as well. MONGO has learned what needed to be learned from past mistakes and the project needs people whoa re prepared to stand up and be counted. Guy (Help!) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
62. Strong support, this editor is brave and a true troll-slayer whenever I have seen him in action. Lobojo (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
63. Support as per my past, positive interactions with this editor. I have no doubt that he will make good use of the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
64. Support, good editor. --STX 04:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
65. Support yep. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
66. Support His hard work on Wikipedia far out gains an negatives and he is a major asset and deserves to have the tools again. ---CWY2190^TC 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
67. Support If not Mongo then who? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Time to right a great wrong. Sophia 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
69. Support - Yes. I am supporting him. --Bhadani (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
70. Support. Giving him back the tools will be a strong net positive for the project. Cool Hand Luke 10:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
71. Support - Garion96 (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
72. Support - Mongo understands and is commited to the encyclopedia and the community that writes it. With his experience as a writer and administrator, giving him the tools would advance the project. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit in 8 weeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.11.228 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    Tom has over 30,000 edits. --Aude (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    Additional note: user has been a registered editor since February 2004, contributing over 20,200 edits to the mainspace alone. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    It's still his very first edit in about two months. Coincidence? Probably. But considering his rather friendly record with MONGO, I wouldn't assume assumption of bad faith or anything with someone who feels like at least mentioning the fact. User:Dorftrottel 23:29, January 20, 2008

    Just trying to add some symmetry to the comments.[1] Cool Hand Luke 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    Well, if my edit is going to raised here, I would like to point out that I really think that most of these comments are superfluous to the process. I made the "additional note" using all of the restraint I could muster, given that the original "note" was made by an account less than 3 months old, and mostly contributed to 9/11 articles. But, I thought pointing all that out, either in the extra note or below their !vote would serve little to no purpose. Personally, I think we should leave out the "notes" altogether except for exceptional cases (e.g., the account is 2 days old -2nd edit was to this RfA). Given that is not what is happening, adding all info pertinent to the first note is appropriate (good call CH Luke). R. Baley (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    Tom Harrison and I last spoke before xmas 2007 when I emailed him to ask him why he had left. He informed me he was fairly tired of some of the ongoing situations and that he was going to be only stopping in from time to time. That was the last time he and I have spoken. I hope he does return in full because I feel he is an invaluable asset, but I rarely badger people about sticking around this place if they are no longer enjoying themselves.--MONGO 06:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    R. Baley: I entirely agree. Unless notes identify remarks by users who have little experience (or are potential sockpuppets), I don't see the purpose of them. In this case, the notes seemed like a vague user accusations even if they were meant in good faith. I think your follow up put it into appropriate context. Cool Hand Luke 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

73. Support with pleasure. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
74. Strong support MONGO's temperament has improved, in regards to dealing with those advocating 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm confident that he won't misuse the tools. Nowadays, MONGO does much vandalism fighting, reporting blatant vandals to the Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism page [2] [3] but would be better if he could just block them himself. He also does quite a lot of article writing, and has been an enormous help in getting articles I've worked on to featured status (e.g. 7 World Trade Center). He's highly committed to Wikipedia and should have the tools back. --Aude (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
75. Strong support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
76. Support You seemed to have dropped your mop. Let's just see what happens if you do get the tools back. Glacier Wolf 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
77. Support Experienced editor, learned his lesson. --tickle me 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
78. Support - I do not see any reason why not to restore his bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
79. Strongest Possible Unqualified Support The good things that this editor has done for the project outweigh the negative by leaps and bounds. I am confident that he won't misuse the tools. Wikipedia needs more admins that are not afraid to stand up to POV pushers and junk science. I think his de-sysoping was a travesty. --rogerd (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
80. Strongest Possible Support good things outweigh bad, he will not use tools in areas of personal dispute. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
81. Support. Browsing through your contributions, you seem to be an excellent editor. Jakew (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
82. Strong Support - Too controversial not to be an admin..If you can speak your mind, then you deserve to be an admin..hope this works out..--Cometstyles 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
83. Strong support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    Strong support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    Indenting as you have already voted put your comment in the support section of the RFA. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

84. Support' He deserves a second chance. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
85. Support a great contributor, thoughtful, a pleasure to collaborat with, sensible. A valued part of the project! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
86. Weak Support weak only due to the issues cited below - hopefully this will be resolved when being an admin, but he has been a very good contributor to the encyclopedia.--JForget 00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
87. Support, Thinks with his head, and takes WP policy seriously. --Shamir1 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
88. Support. Good editor, understands policy well, sensible approach. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
89. Support Callmederek (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
90. Support. Does good work, including some good cleaning-up and seems to have reasonable self-insight. -- Olve (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
91. Support. This editor has long shown his good intentions towards the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    ...and you know what's paved with good intentions... *Dan T.* (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

92. Support. MONGO has tread a longer road than many of us, and I think he's learned from that road. I'd like to urge those who are judging him from past interactions to look at his behavior since the Arbcom case, which I think is well within the bounds of expected behavior. I'd be glad to give him a mop and bucket again. Nandesuka (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    Comment; some of us have looked at his behaviour since the Arbcom ruling. Edit-warring, serial incivility and continued drama and disruption are not "well within the bounds of expected behavior" for a prospective admin, at least not for me. Do you have any diffs showing he has "learned from that road"? Believe it or not, I would love to be proved wrong here. --John (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

93. Support I peer-reviewed the Yellowstone fires article for MONGO, and was impressed by his attitude and writing ability. Nothing has happened in the last year that would warrant a desysopping if he were still an admin now - including that unfortunate discussion cited by Alison, where I certainly disagree with MONGO's opinion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    I don't usually respond to supports - but, there is, as far as I know, nothing at all that is technically possible for a non-admin to do that would get an admin desysopped, since desysopping is for abuse of admin tools. I think the more pertinent question is, if this behavior were coming from a new user with no prior bad history, would they pass RFA? —Random832 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

94. Support - would make fine admin. Learned from past issues. I disagree with reasoning that just because a user edits contentious articles means he would make a bad sysop. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
95. Weak support. MONGO seems highly experienced and has contributed a lot of good work to the project, and this needs to be kept in mind. However, the diffs provided below do concern me somewhat. I think he could use the admin tools well, which is why I'm supporting, but I'm slightly concerned that he might misuse them with deletions and blocking - for example, with the Salty Walrus article, since I'm not an admin I can't see the deleted content, but an article about a slang term for a sexual act describing it as such in a coherent manner does not meet any of the WP:CSD such as G1 patent nonsense, even if it's obviously not a notable term, violating WP:V, WP:N, WP:WINAD and possibly WP:NOR, this still isn't a speedy delete - that's just part of the deletion process which we go through (there is also WP:SNOW though, which I believe is a controversial issue). I must also say that becoming involved in disputes or controversy is definitely not a valid reason to oppose someone becoming an administrator. For example, I believe that MONGO's statements during the controversy surrounding Encyclopedia Dramatica, and the off-wiki attack page about MONGO on ED were perfectly justified. He was also absolutely right to support the deletion of the ED article, because the website itself lacks non-trivial third party coverage in reliable sources - certainly not enough to have an article with much information at all without violating WP:NOR - I would support having an article on ED if third-party coverage was significant enough to allow for an encyclopedia article, but it's not at the moment. The reason we don't have an article on it is because it fails WP:V, not because it's a controversial topic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    Trust me, you don't want to see the deleted content of Salty Walrus; I really wish I hadn't looked at it. Yuck. Walton^One 10:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    I looked it up in Urban Dictionary afterwards. I must admit that it is a pretty disgusting term, but I guess it's in the same league as stuff we do have articles on, such as rusty trombone, cleveland steamer, donkey punch, dirty sanchez, teabagging, etcetera, so that a new user might, not understanding WP:V and WP:N try to create an article on a similar made-up sexual slang term such as angry dragon or the aforementioned salty walrus without realising that it's impossible to have an encyclopedia article on this subject without any reliable sources. This relates to MONGO's adminship because a coherent article about any of these slang terms describing them as slang is not nonsense, and it's against process to re-add a CSD tag three times when something is much more suitable for PROD or if contested, an AfD which could end in a WP:SNOW delete.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    Looking at the fact that the article did not have any refs and the nature of the content, I saw it as patent nonsense and felt it was a speedy candidate based on the general criteria. While I am generally a fan of process, I'm not very supportive of process just for the shear sake of it. That the article lasted but a short time on Afd is indicative that it was not a keeper. However, I shouldn't have repeatedly added the tags.--MONGO 12:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

96. Support. Given all the crap he's had to deal with from persistent trolls and their enablers, I'm surprised he's still here. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
97. Support. Mongo has matured with his experience. Axl (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
98. Strong support. Heroic and bearish admin, like those of legend. Desysopped on an aberrant process, IMHO. Has weathered a zillion papercuts from the ED luker brigade. Still a fine and stable page contributor. Transparent. Knows the dark streets. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
99. Support. Tireless contributor. A bit gruff which might come off to some as rudeness but is just plain speaking. Moving to New York from the south, I thought all New Yorkers were rude. They're not. MONGO speaks his mind. --PTR (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
100. Support -- I have no personal experience with MONGO's work, either as an editor or administrator. But he has gone on record with satisfactory answers to the key questions I ask candidates for administrator. Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
101. Support — MONGO is a drama magnet, primarily due to his editing in the September 11 articles, but his civility (a problem in the past) has improved recently, to the point where restoring his admin tools is justified. Being at the center of a dramastorm generated primarily from a series of banned editors, single-purpose accounts, and POV-warriors is not sufficient reason to deny someone admin tools. While he was de-adminned in the past, there is no indication that he will make the same errors again, and unlike most others who have had the tools removed, he neither left Wikipedia in a huff nor requested the tools again in a matter of weeks. Horologium (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
102. 'Support Can be trusted to regain them. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
103. Support Reading the oppose lobby I keep seeing Mongo is an excellent, wonderful editor, but.... Well I think wonderful editors should be recognised. but... Well my experience this that it is easy (rightly or wrongly) for a small group to push out an admin -so what is the problem? Aatomic1 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
104. Support Although it's damn near pointless now. *sigh*. "I hope you'll allow me to serve the community as an administrator once again" Yes, that would be the ticket. Pedro :  Chat  23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
105. Support: --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
106. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 14:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
107. Support Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

     Support - I've encountered this editor before and find him a smart editor who has demonstrated a deep care for the improvement of this project. --Oakshade (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC) After viewing some of his history and very strong POV hostility to editors who disagree with him, I just don't feel comfortable supporting giving him admin tools so soon. --Oakshade (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

108. Support. People grow. People learn. I think Mongo's heart and brain are in the right place for this request. Kingturtle (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
109. Support - Kingturtle said it well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
110. Support per Dorftrottel. Dlohcierekim 02:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
111. I was considering opposing MONGO at first, but upon consideration, I realise he is more thoughtful than my previous impressions, I think he learned a lot from his previous status as an admin and I think he would not intentionally misuse or abuse the tools if they were given to him for a second time. I am concerned, however, that the harassment that plagued him (and I do mean harassment) might return, if he were given the bit. I guess as long as he recognises this and thinks he can cope with it, then so be it.  :) --Iamunknown 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
112. support utterly committed wikipedian. Sure he's made mistakes, but given he's learned from them I'm more confident of him than any untested user we pass on the nod. It is ridiculously too hard to resysop.--Doc^g 16:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
113. support what we don't need is to give rise to a crop of administrators who are so afraid of being criticized as "controversial" that they will back down when faced with nutcases who are more than happy to get into a fight to support their particular pathological edits. Gzuckier (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
114. Support, ArbCom was completely wrong on his case and the de-adminship decision should never have gone through; it basically puts forth the principle that no admin can take any action, right or wrong, on any subject they have had any amount of previous participation in. MONGO is a good editor and admin, and should still have has sysop bit. -- Renesis (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
115. Support --Dchall1 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
116. Support per Xoloz and B; in other words, nobody's perfect. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
117. Support: Too many Wikignomes as Admins and this user is clearly committed to Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
118. Happy to support, nobody's perfect. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
119. Support. Anyone who deals with the garbage on 9/11 articles needs to be commended rather than punished. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
120. Support. I was not always happy with his comments, but I think he has learned a lot and is a valuable contributor. I won't hold having an actual opinion (and admitting it) against him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
121. Support - needs the tools back.   jj137 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

     No, he doesn't need the tools back as no one needs the tools. He wants them back; see nom. –Pomte 04:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

122. It has been so long since I last edited a RfA... but indeed, this user appears to have had a change of heart. It is expected that controversial users fail their first RfA after an incident of magnitude, and though [sadly] I believe he will never be trusted by the community again, I am willing to give him a new chance. After all, I am controversial myself and [I think] can recognize when someone is saying something truthfully. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
123. Support - major contributor. Geologyguy (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. We have the unusual benefit here of not having to guess how this candidate would use the tools- we already know. Friday (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose as user doesn't seem to be able to WP:AGF. diff -Dureo (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose Impressive edit history, but seems to get in a lot of fights.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   I like this editor's answer to question 7; withdrawing my vote.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Quite strong oppose Whilst this user has demonstratrated the ability to use admins tools in a "good" way, he has a long history of asuming bad faith and generally seems to get involved in disagreements a lot. Admins are expected to be much more reasonable, able to sit down and have a cup of tea.--Phoenix-wiki 11:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - too many disputes and cannot trust user with tools. EJF (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose - deletes legitimate sources of information and neutral language from 9/11-related webpage without providing an explanation. --Sannleikur (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   User may be opposing per this comment Rudget. 12:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Struck due to indef block for sockpuppetry. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

   UNstruck, editor unblocked. Viridae^Talk 11:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   Restruck, reblocked RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose, although I've got no problem with MONGO editing on controversial topics, what I do have a problem with is the way MONGO always seems to get involved in drama when he does so. Has misused admin tools in the past, and I'll have to disagree with those above, and say that I think his desysopping was very much warranted. I acknowledge that MONGO has made a huge stack of valuable edits since his desysopping, but I just do not trust him with the tools again. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

   Oppose, per the diffs provided here: [4]. Maybe not worth a blocking, but not appropriate behaviour for a prospective admin. MichelleG (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

   Struck due to sockpuppetry. User has RedChinaForever and another account. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose. My experiences with MONGO do not lead me to believe he would use the admin tools appropriately. - auburnpilot talk 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Regretful oppose. I respect MONGO's dedication to the site and I think in general he would be a fine admin. However, following the admittedly highly regrettable personal attacks he faced on an external site, he has in my opinion advocated an understandable but overly simplistic agenda regarding so-called attack sites. That in itself (which could merely be called a disagreement of opinion and is frequent and desirable amongst dedicated Wikipedians) is not a reason to oppose. However, he has fairly recently continued to advocate this agenda with such passion and zeal that I cannot be certain enough he would not use admin tools to support it with actions beyond what could reasonably be called consensus on the matter. I'll be fully prepared to support MONGO in an RFA in a few months if either a) the so-called attack sites issue does not resurface and is shown to be passé or uncontroversial, or b) if it does resurface, MONGO either treats it with greater dispassion or stays away from it. Martinp (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Changing to Regretful strong oppose per Alison's comments, below. When I made my vote above, my remarks referred primarily to MONGO's contributions around the time of the RFAR BADSITES case this fall. Alison's link below shows that MONGO's obsession (to be blunt) with this issue is still alive and well as of late December 2007, something I was not aware of. One of the current painful kerfuffles before ArbCom which is tearing apart part of the community (we all know which one I mean but I won't name it to avoid it spreading here) is at least in part due to several esteemed wikipedians(administrators and nonadministrators) exhibiting an obsession and tunnel vision around issues which are important, but not nearly important enough for the continued disruption the resultant conflict is generating. I am therefore very afraid of promoting another also esteemed wikipedia user who appears to demonstrate similar tunnel vision around a different but high profile issue to a position of greater authority. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Martinp (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose as an admin; suport as a wikipedian. MONGO is a wonderful asset to wikipedia, but we are better off with a touch less drama. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose. Seems to feed on drama, I've seen him in passing in rather questionable matters, and I am worried that he would in fact abuse the tools. Alison's diff below sums things up, I'd say. Wizardman 16:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Weak Oppose - While I can understand his position re. BADSITES and the dreadful incidents regarding himself, his massive and ill-directed assumptions of bad faith on the part of others concerns me greatly. This example is obviously the one I'm most familiar with, but there have been others. I've seen him doing some excellent work on WP but admins need to be super-neutral on such matters and basically, convey the will of the community in as fair and as considerate a manner as possible. I'm not so sure he will do this - Alison ^❤ 16:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Looking at that thread, while it looks like he was needlessly aggressive with you, it was perfectly reasonable for him to ask how the CheckUser powers were obtained. Personally I think CheckUsers should be elected by the community to fixed terms; at present there is no real accountability. I have no opinion on WR, BADSITES etc., but I do feel very strongly that anyone who holds an official position should be prepared to explain themselves to anyone who asks. (I'm not suggesting any bad faith or poor decisions on your part - from what I've seen you're a perfectly good CheckUser, as well as an excellent admin, and I know you would never abuse the tools. But I just don't think that asking someone why they were granted the CheckUser powers constitutes an assumption of bad faith.) As I don't know much about the whole WR controversy, though, I could have got the wrong end of the stick here (hence why I haven't voted on this RfA yet). Walton^One 17:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    If you read on, it's readily apparent that it's a BADSITES issue;, "My concern was related to your participation in a website with a known history of attacking our contributors". My second-last comment on the thread sums it up. Basically, MONGO bullying me over Checkuser was because I posted to WR. I don't wish to stir up further drahmaz here, so this will be my last comment on the matter. People can read it through and judge accordingly - Alison ^❤ 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    My choice of words and comments were mistaken. However, seriously, as long as I might have been on this website, I really didn't know who you were or how checkuser tools were given, nor did I know all you have done to protect this website from those who wish to harm it. I'm pretty well versed in most areas of this pedia, but the entire checkuser thing is something I am not very familiar with overall.--MONGO 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Per this and this comment tonight, as far as I'm concerned this matter is now closed. I appreciate MONGO making these statements, and understand that while we disagree on a number of issues, we both have the best interests of the project in mind - Alison ^❤ 08:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

11. Change to Oppose Per Alison's evidence at massive and ill-directed assumptions of bad faith. Lawrence Cohen 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose Discombobulator (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Do you have a reason? Acalamari 17:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, I do have a reason. Discombobulator (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    Can you please disclose it then? Acalamari 17:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Technically, he doesn't need one. If he has one, he doesn't need to state it. Axl (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    I am well aware that he is entitled to not give a reason, but as people are allowed to discuss votes, I am equally entitled to ask what his reason is. Acalamari 17:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose per Alison. I'm sorry but we really don't need more of that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    To put that in other words, as long as you can't let go of past disputes or can't figure out that the best solution is to not read these drama sites that gets you all worked up I don't think you are ready for the tools yet. And that is a damn shame because you are a fine editor! EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Changing to neutral per the answers to question 6 and 7 EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

13. Oppose essentially what Martinp and Alison said. May be a great editor but not someone I'd trust in a position of power. (adminship is a position of power, relatively speaking) - TwoOars 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose, per Alison. krimpet✽ 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose. People who do not have a problem with attacking those they disagree with should not be admins. Actually, they shouldn't have a practically clean block log either. -Amarkov moo! 18:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

15. Strong Oppose if I was deemed unfit to be an admin, Mongo certainly is. He regularly makes personal attacks, both on and off site.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

    I think Alkivar is saying that the standard he was reqested to be held to be the arbitration committee is the standard he's going to use for evaluating Rfa's. It is a fair consideration. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose This user is not sufficiently inclined to AGF.Edivorce (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose, completely unsuited to adminship. Everyking (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose, per his interaction with Alison and the over-zealousness on the BADSITES thing that it came from. This user has become addicted to wikidrama; His edit-warring on a policy page ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], all within a two-week period in October 2007), shows that he fails to understand the spirit of WP:3RR; along with that, some of the edit summaries in those edits show that he does not adequately understand WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA either (ironically enough, the latter was the policy page he was edit-warring over; BADSITES again). I do not doubt that he thinks he is acting from good motives, or that he is a nice person. However, this kind of behaviour shows that he has failed to make the necessary improvements since his deadminship. Giving him the tools back would be a very serious mistake, in my opinion. --John (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose. Though I have rarely (ever? I can't remember doing so -offhand) opposed any RfA's, it's warranted in this case. R. Baley (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Lest anyone think I have an ax to grind, I was able to find 3 edits in my contribs (ctrl-F search for 'Mongo') which were Mongo related: [16] [17] [18] R. Baley (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Striking for now- not as clear cut as initially thought and answer to #7 was good. Giving myself more time to think, R. Baley (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

19. Oppose User seemingly can not avoid drama, and has been involved in several (though unaccepted) requests for arbitration since his desysopping.--Toffile (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Note: this is Toffile's first contribution in over a month. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Additional Note: Toffile has been a registered editor since June 2005, contributing 800+ edits to the mainspace. R. Baley (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose Previous issues have been caused primarily by MONGO's attitude, and I see no evidence of that having changed. --Tango (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Strong OpposeToo many WP:AGF violations in the past with no evidence of change as stated by Tango. --Veritas (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Alison and others. I should note in doing so that I am impressed with this user's off-wiki efforts in combatting very serious harassment of Wikipedians. However, that does not for me at least mitigate this user's long history of personal attacks, failure to assume good faith and the endless drama generated from this user's disputes with others, especially on right-vs-left hot button political topics. That is acceptable with a user, as we have many fine contributors in a similar situation, but with admin tools it becomes a hazard. Orderinchaos 19:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose Per Alison etc. The drama is drastically diverting this whole project. I am sure there are better un-drama editors out there to whom the bit should go. --mceder (u t c) 19:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose, sorry but this is bound to cause more drama. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose - per Alison and Martinp; I can't see an immense amount of improvement, espcially in AGF, since the (IMHO deserved) desysopping. BLACKKITE 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose We should have learned by now that otherwise-exceptional users who get in fights make bad administrators. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Absolutely not. While he might be good at writing articles, he is not fit for admin duties, as per above points. Majorly (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
28. No. I hardly even needed Alison's link to know about his massive and repetitive tendencies to assign guilt by association. He threw a lot of mud in "BADSITES part 2", and there was no "bending over backwards to AGF" there. —Random832 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose Per all the sited diffs. Needs to assume good faith and be less.... dramatic. Wikipedia is not high school. --Sharkface217 20:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Strong Oppose. He's fine as an author of mainspace articles, but not so good as a person to be trusted with any sort of power or authority over others. He has been a major force in the BADSITES nonsense from its inception; the oft-cited ArbCom decision constantly used in arguments from authority in that area had his name on it. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose Per [19]. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose with deep regret. I really like MONGO as a person, and think he means very well. And he's often right about stuff, important stuff... But somehow I don't see him having the "deft touch" needed to be an effective administrator, so I cannot support this request. Not everyone is suited for the drudgery, general scrutiny, slings and arrows, and second guessing by the peanut gallery (here and elsewhere) that come with being an admin here... also, per Martinp and Alison. John, I don't think MONGO is necessarily addicted to drama, it rather does sometimes seem to seek him out instead of the other way round. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    I stand by my judgement, but you were right, it was lazy of me to make my !vote based on that subjective judgement. I've amended it accordingly. --John (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

33. Strong Oppose Was incredibly incivil in my only interaction with him. On the Salty Walrus article, an admin denied the speedy, and his response was to put it back on. I removed it and asked him to take it to AFD. His response was to remove it and tag the article yet again. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose. The articles that he has worked on as the primary editor and nominated for Featured are excellent. Unfortunately, however, he was a strong supporter of the BADSITES effort and, as far as I know, has never admitted that the campaign to censor websites that a small group of editors didn't/doesn't like was misguided and wrong. He also refused to participate in an RfC concerning his behavior just a couple of months ago [20]. Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Might I mention that some evidence presented in that RfC against MONGO shown here, a specific user was later indef banned by Jimbo Wales - Quote: "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (user not here to work in good faith with others to build an encyclopedia). Block log JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Are you dissembling? If so, that's actually appropriate as that is a favorite tactic of MONGO when opposing editors contrary to his stated or unstated position on an issue. Nevertheless, I invite anyone to review the RfC to see if the concerns expressed about MONGO's behavior are genuine, which, I believe they are. Cla68 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

35. oppose well known anger and paranoia problem. Merkinsmum 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose Does not comprehend consensus, or how lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and has been far too easily baited (by users all to ready to bait), to be entrusted with dispassionate use of the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    I should like to comment that I have been quite(ly) impressed by MONGO's conduct during this RfA - not even close enough to make me reconsider my vote, but sufficiently to reword the last reason given in my oppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

37. Oppose due mostly to recent diff cited by Alison. I do not doubt MONGO's sincerity, good intentions, or dedication to this site, and he has made extensive valuable contributions. I also do not doubt his ability to perform many of the administrative tasks he cited above in his answers to the questions. I also firmly believe in forgiving past mistakes and not allowing "scarlet letters" to forever taint well-meaning editors. But I am concerned that he has displayed a long, steady history of failure to assume good faith and high reactivity to trollbait due to an "us vs them" mentality of WR, and aggressively pursuing suspected editors without sufficient evidence. I have serious concerns with how he would use his tools in terms of WP:SSP, blocking, page protecting, and related areas. In his noble quest to rid Wikipedia of trolls and those who stalk and harass other editors, I'm afraid he's unintentionally fostered an environment of suspicion, accusation, and drama that is detrimental to building a strong Wikipedia community, and will affect his ability to wield the mop appropriately. ~Eliz81^(C) 23:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose The above arguments are pretty convincing.--Bedivere (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose per Alison. Given the current mood, I do not think adminship is likely for MONGO for quite some time, then again, consensus can change. However, I would ask MONGO to study these oppose comments thoroughly and learn from them - it is clearly not a trivial issue or human error that you are being denied the tools, it is a problem which you must fix. Only then will you be able to regain what you have lost via ArbCom - otherwise the ArbCom move was pointless. When someone is desysopped it isn't so much a punishment but a chance to mend one's ways and move forward. It is difficult, because grudges may still exist from those whom with you argued and feuded over the issues you have become infamous for, but it is still possible. Learn from these mistakes instead of cursing your opponents and the community will thank you for it. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
40. Per Alison. There's also too much drama surrounding him for my liking. — DarkFalls ^talk 01:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
41. Mongo is an excellent, wonderful editor, whose article-writing I respect and admire in the utmost. However, he is far too passionate regarding issues close to his heart, and is immovable on positions he holds regarding important matters in the community. While I can absolutely understand some of his opinions regarding badsites etc, and his tenacity and defence of his positions could be considered admirable, his behaviour towards Alison and Krimpet in the recent past - two admins whom I have never seen acting in an untoward manner - and his serial assumptions of bad faith indicate that he is currently not suitable for this role. With enormous regret, ~ Riana ⁂ 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    Krimpet issued a rather terse "final warning" on my talkpage, citing what she felt were evidences of my incivilities [21]. I removed her warning [22] because I believed, as did the majority of the community, that they were frivilous...she then subsequently blocked me for removing her warning! [23] I hadn't even commented anywhere since her final warning statement. The block was overturned quickly [24] and I never even knew I had been blocked since I was offline the entire time and then saw much commotion about the event.[25] It needs to be noted that of the first three diffs she provided as rationale for her final warning, I was in communication with Miltopia, who was subsequently banned indefinitely by Jimbo Wales. The arbcom diffs she provided were on a case where I had submitted substantial and in the end conclusive evidence which led to the banning of another editor....I tried to ignore that guy, but it was almost impossible since he has a history of creating new socks and going after people. The last diff she cited was after Viridae had warned me to be more civil to someone who had told me he wished I would get cancer![26] That editor was never blocked and Viridae didn't even bother to warn him...I mean, take a look at that editor's contributions....and not one block...82.37.85.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) I admit I regret my conversation with Alison, but indeed, I do think anyone who is trusted with so many powers on this website should at least AGF towards me when I ask her questions and do what I can to urge her to not contribute to WR...and she turns around and does that anyway feeding the egos of many a banned editor there by posting a complaint about me in a thread started by notorious troll Rootology! Rootology was indefinitely banned by arbcom in the RFAR MONGO case after it was demostrated that he had used the moniker "Fuckface" on the ED website and was one of the primary contributors to articles there that harassed our editors...I am very disappointed that the irony of that matter is so lost.--MONGO 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

42. Oppose. I have never interacted with MONGO but I have read some of the fantastic national parks related articles he's created. I have to regretfully oppose based on Alison's post above. I encourage MONGO to keep up the good work with the parks related articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
43. Oppose While most of the time I believe in 2nd chance, you had a history of misusing your tools. If your were blocked for a short period of time for misuse, I understand that and forgive it. But when you're desysopped by ArbCom, this must be serious. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
44. Oppose The fact there was an RFC just two months ago, about constant civility problems, compounded by recent discussions (as noted by Alison), makes this vote inevitable for me. SirFozzie (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
45. Oppose I'm sorry MONGO, but I have to oppose at this time. You have chronic incivility problems and being desysoped by the ArbCom for not handling disputes the proper way. I won't go into detail given all the reasons for opposing are listed above by the Wikipedians who participate here. PrestonH 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
46. Oppose. Based on his past history, very strong emotional reactions to certain issues, and problems with WP:AGF, I'm not confident that this user would use the tools wisely. *** Crotalus *** 09:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
47. Oppose -- I have lost confidence in Mongo's ability to ever properly exercise the functions of an administrator. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
48. Oppose per alison. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
49. Oppose I've had to think about this. I've interacted with MONGO pretty extensively through my prior account User:Academy Leader, and while he has always been civil with me, it's easy to tell that he isn't above carrying on a one-man edit war with people whose views on linking policy contrast with his. Compounding this are statements I've heard from him that participating in various WP:DR forums short of ArbCom, such as Mediation, were "a waste of time." While I have not and would not oppose anyone's RFA based on their political beliefs or opinions, I also can't realistically support for this reason, and further have to oppose based on his tendency to reduce complex, multi-sided conflicts to "either/or" "black & white" affairs, coupled with his apparent inability or unwillingness to see the other side once he's caught up in a dichotomy. Amerique^dialectics 14:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
50. This editor is unable to operate within the realms of incivility and feels justified in breaking those rules when dealing with those he dislikes. Whilst he is obviously a fine editor, I don't trust his judgement as an administrator and have concerns about impartiality. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
51. Oppose per civility. If the newbies (and expierinced editors) were bitten they might as well leave. Marlith ^T/C 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
52. Oppose - While I appreciate your desire to again serve the community as an admin, I'm afraid that I don't believe it to be in the community's best interest. I think that you have a tendency to speak before you think (that's the AGF version: I sometimes wonder if you speak after you think in a way that's deliberately dramatic) and it's sure to stir up more drama. I note with pleasure, though, your contributions to the community and hope that you will continue to take an active role. I simply can't support +sysop for you. - Philippe | Talk 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
53. Oppose → Not fit per Alison's issue of just weeks ago. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
54. One of the most uncivil editors on the project at times, does nto have the temperament for adminship. Viridae^Talk 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
55. Oppose Lar sums up my thoughts on this matter nicely. As for, "...MONGO can be gruff at times; but, he's much tamer than many who still wield the mop.": poor conduct in one user is not an excuse for allowing it in others. Administrators are supposed to be exemplary in their adherence to our policies on civility, and this candiate is not. MONGO is knowledgeable and obviously an experienced editor, but I would not trust him with the tools. VanTucky 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
56. Oppose Alliances and obsessions are not what I look for in an admin.--G-Dett (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
57. Oppose Per above to much drama --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
58. Oppose My sole interaction was as one of the editors involved in the Salty walrus incident hbdragon refers to above, in which he struck me as incredibly rude in his comments, and arrogant in restoring a speedy tag three times after it had been denied by three different people. While I've never been involved in any of the big flareups around him, as an (occasional) poster to WR and Kelly Martin's blog I'm undoubtedly classed as a troll enabler; it would be hypocritical of me to do anything other than oppose. — iridescent 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    The article was an obvious speedy candidate and I couldn't for the life of me understand why no one saw it for what it was. When it was sent to Afd, it lasted 1.5 hours before it was snowballed....see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Walrus--MONGO 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, it was 'not an obvious speedy candidate. The article described the sexual act in a coherent manner, as disgusting as it was, does not make it speedy candidate. Even excluding that, two different admins disagreed, you misused the undo function and removed my message telling you to go to AFD without comment. Then you retagged it again and surely would have done it again had the third admin not sent it to AFD. At the time, I thought Amarkov was exaggerating when he claimed that you were incivil, but I couldn't believe you'd edit war in such an incivil way over something as uncontroversial as a speedy deletion tag. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    "...I couldn't for the life of me understand why no one saw it for what it was." is at the root of why many oppose this RfA. Sysops interpret consensus, not impose it. That you would still argue the case now indicates that the mindset still remains. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    I remember it as having zero refs and zero notability. I remember it qualified as a speedy candidate based on the general criteria, as patent nonsense, but maybe I didn't post that rationale when I originally tagged it. I can't tell since I can't see the article or it's history.--MONGO 08:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

59. Oppose per Friday and Everyking. Ripberger (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
60. Better suited as an editor. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
61. Oppose on the grounds that the following evidence indicates he is not suitable to be an admin: 1 "Despite widespread opposition and lack of any consensus, MONGO has reinserted Attack-Site-related text into WP:NPA a total of nineteen times", 2 harrassment of Alison and 3 getting blocked recently for incivil behaviour Mujinga (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
62. Wrong temperament, probably on thin ice (I wouldn't be surprised if the next arbitration case filed against him gets accepted). TML (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
63. Oppose. A good editor and an overall asset to the project, but at this point I feel that certain elements of the editor's temperament would interfere with the aplomb, control, and judgment a sysop requires and at this point in time, I am uncertain that this editor's being a sysop would be a net gain to the community. -- Avi (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
64. Oppose. Candidate has not resolved his chronic incivility problems such that I trust him to not screw up with the tools. Perhaps at some future date, but will need to demonstrate significantly more maturity than has been on display until now. —CComMack (t–c) 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
65. No way. Too incivil. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose, has been involved in uncivil acts as recently as last November. When criticised or called to account for his actions, screams "harassment" and lashes out uncivilly. Has previously been stripped of rank for misusing admin rights. Behavior during BADSITES speaks for itself. RedChinaForever (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

    I saw this username and look up his contribs, looked a bit funny and had hardly any edits. A CU shows it to be MichelleG (talk · contribs) and one other user. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

66. Oppose. It's not that he has strong opinions, it's that we've been shown through words and actions that he's been rather combative in expressing those opinions. It's like a guest from hell on Maury, quite frankly. Amusing but not anything to take seriously. Mike H. Fierce! 12:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
67. Oppose. I feel that he is a great article writer but can easily be baited into doing "the wrong thing" which is defined as harming the project. I also did not like the way that the WP:NPA language situation was handled. spryde | talk 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    Further expounding: Late in October, a bitter war over a WP:BADSITES involved debate appeared to be finally settled with all sides agreeing to language regarding external link attacks (including MONGO who explicitly agreed to the wording). 15 days later, without any prior discussion, he reinserts the disputed text touching off yet another edit war, RFC on Mongo, etc. WP:BRD is a guideline and doing it while knowing that an edit war would occur is extremely damaging and not becoming of an administrator. This is why I oppose. I support his article writing. I do not support his adminship. spryde | talk 14:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

68. Oppose. Worth coming out of hiding for - the fact that he can even edit here anymore is problematic, giving him any extra responsibility given the track record is only asking for more trouble that the project doesn't need. --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
69. Absolutely Not. Most people know that I don't usually oppose these things, but MONGO's history when it comes to civility is astounding. No evidence that he's changed, and if there is and I've missed it, it's likely not nearly enough to undo my negative views of his style. Sorry. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose. Though I've been in heated conflicts with MONGO in the past (to the point of complaining about his behavior in an ArbCom case--and no it had nothing to do with 9/11 or BADSITES or WR), I really would like to be able to support his request here. I think in recent months MONGO has implicitly acknowledged some of his past incivility (one of his biggest problems) and made an effort to change that (though Alison's thread provides a counterexample). If that kind of improved behavior continued for another 6-9 months I would probably support. However I'm just not convinced at this point that some of the old problems (amply discussed by others) would not crop up if he was re-sysopped and thus cannot trust him with the mop. I also think it likely that his adminship would be a net detriment to the community. I'm sure he would do some fine work, but this RFA shows how split the community is on MONGO, such that any even vaguely controversial admin action he took would create far more trouble than it would be worth. I hasten to add what numerous others have already said: namely that MONGO is one of our best content editors. I certainly hope he continues in that role for a long time, and would re-consider him for adminship at some point in the future.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Changing to neutral, see below.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

70. Oppose. Too much effort being directed at counterintelligence aka witch-hunt. Not constructive. Samsara noadmin (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
71. Oppose. I don't think that he could resist the temptation to use admin tools to gain advantage in the inevitable POV disputes. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
72. Oppose - I'm a bit concerned by the Wikipedia Review paranoia. While MONGO has good reason to be wary of off-site harassment (I'm not going to deny that), there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, lest we end up with a lynch mob searching for witches. Not all sites critical of Wikipedia harass our editors. I occasionally read Wikipedia Review myself to get a different perspective on a given situation. Sean William @ 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
73. Oppose. past civility and drama issues. Yilloslime (t) 02:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
74. Oppose. Too much drama and trouble in the history to feel confident that this individual would use the tools judiciously. Doczilla (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
75. Oppose per Friday and others Achromatic (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
76. Oppose per Lar, Cla68, Amarkov, John, MartinP, OhanaUnited, and most succinctly Eliz81. I've never voted to oppose anything, ever, that actually hurt me to do so. This will be the first. You have always been a fantastic, phenomenal editor and have done a lot--a whole lot--of fantastic things for Wikipedia, both in admin and non-admin ways. But for the love of the 'Pedia! Blocking someone with whom you have any sort of conflict is an absolute, unconditional Wiki-sin that merits permanent removal from the community of administrators. It's really that simple. Isn't that what happened here? Besides, anyone who seems scared of WR and its ilk really, really frightens me. But dang it, you are a wonderful editor. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    Permanent removal looks like a likely prospect in my case. I don't agree with that assessment though. There are plenty of admins who have blocked others they have been in conflicts with and they are still admins....in fact, no one has done a thing about it. There are also plenty of admins who have unblocked editors without first discussing the matter with the blocking admin, or gaining an obvious consensus to do the unblock via a noticeboard. I certainly don't think I would ever do any of these things again. There are also admins who have protected pages they have either edited or have voiced opinions on. As far as WR...there have been overt efforts to identify the real life ID's of some of our editors. I believe our editors have a right to personal privacy if they want it. However, some of our editors are there trying to set the record straight on a number of issues. Perhaps they can eventually take over that site and turn it into what it should be...namely, a real critical review of this website, instead of what it oftentimes becomes which is a place for many a Wikipedia banned editor to post nasty attacks.--MONGO 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    Permanent removal may look a likely prospect but not useful one at least in your case - I have always maintained that time is dynamic, and (so) editors like you will have to be endowed with admin-tools, if not now than at a future date, if the Project has to remain vibrant and valuable. I also fully agree with your comments: "There are plenty of admins who have blocked others they have been in conflicts with and they are still admins....in fact, no one has done a thing about it. There are also plenty of admins who have unblocked editors without first discussing the matter with the blocking admin, or gaining an obvious consensus to do the unblock via a noticeboard. I certainly don't think I would ever do any of these things again. There are also admins who have protected pages they have either edited or have voiced opinions on...", etc. In my frank assesement, most of the administrators may lose their adminship if they are required to seek periodical consensus to retain adminship for obvious reasons. As such, I am not dismayed at so many editors (with due respect to their opinions) who don't desire your re-sysoping! --Bhadani (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    Two wrongs don't make a right. Every single admin who blocks someone they are having a conflict with for any reason not related to immediate and obvious vandalism should be de-sysopped, banned from Wikipedia, and executed by lethal injection. (I'm joking about exactly one of those three. Guess which one.) I'll also repeat the comment that MONGO himself has said: "...I couldn't for the life of me understand why no one saw it for what it was." As my new favorite RFA commenter, LessHeard vanU, said, admins MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST interpret and NOT create any sort of "consensus" single-handedly. You are the prototype of the "good editor, bad administrator" class. Reading these responses, my opposition has been made firm. Stay away from adminship, you will only do harm to this encyclopedia if you attempt to monitor instead of expand it. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    I guess I'll have to assume you're joking about the lethal injection bit...but am taken aback by your belief I deserve to be both desysopped and banned too. Unless I have misunderstood your comment.--MONGO 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

77. Oppose - The project is strengthened when personalities who have come to be seen as polarizing -- rightly or wrongly -- are not burdened with the responsibilities of adminship. Mongo has too many enemies who will certainly continue to bait and pester him as they have in the past. That, I am sorry to say, leads to nothing but disruption when administrative actions are concerned. An experienced editor such as Mongo can easily contribute much in the trenches with the common editors. MilesAgain (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
78. Oppose - The project will be better off if he is not given the administrative tools. I've seen him as a cause of too much disruption. GRBerry 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
79. Oppose. Creates fewer problems as a regular user. Probably the best possible situation for him and the project. — CharlotteWebb 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
80. Oppose. "... something about my persona generally makes that a risky choice to make." Tegwarrior (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
81. Oppose per comments regarding "harassment" in the past. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. BJ^Talk 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
82. Oppose MONGO never even attempted to address some major incivility issues over at his recent RfC. Perhaps with a little more time to demonstrate that he really is ready to handle conflict calmly, I would be ready to support. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
83. Oppose others have said it better before me; in short, hasn't changed. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
84. Oppose Surely this RfA was submitted only as a means of trolling. It should (and, apparently, will) be dismissed as such. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Please assume good faith and not call a legitimate RfA trolling. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Considering Mongo's history, it is impossible to assume good faith. --Eleemosynary (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Several users here are opposing MONGO on the basis that he doesn't assume good faith enough. How can you expect him to assume good faith more when not assuming good faith with him? Acalamari 17:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    I don't expect him to AGF. He's proven himself incapable of it. There is no Wikipedia policy requiring members to "be credulous in spite of all evidence." --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Listen, I opposed the RFA too, but I don't think this is trolling. Whatever. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 19:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

85. Oppose. As MONGO points out, he has had over a year to demonstrate his fitness to regain adminship. His conduct over that time, as in the following examples, doesn't give me any confidence that has been demonstrated. He made an accusation of "lies and misrepresentation", failed to provide evidence, cited only his "impression", yet refused to retract.[27] He left an edit summary of "revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not."[28] A Finding of Fact in the Seabhcan ArbCom case was MONGO's habitual over-reaction, which included "freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner," as well as "misusing and threatening to misuse his administrative tools". (The same ArbCom case cited a comparable edit by Seabhcan with an allegation of editing prejudice based on national stereotyping in a Finding of Fact, Background issues.) Very recently in the conversation pointed out above by Alison with her and SirFozzie—both admins in good standing here who also contribute to WR—MONGO said, regarding WR-type sites, "I see any participation in them to be akin to aiding and abetting trolls."[29] The ArbCom Finding of Fact, MONGO's habitual over-reaction, cited an edit summary by him with an identical sentiment about "two admins that support harassment".[30]. Change? Plus ça change...Tyrenius (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Tyrenius, we went over some of this in an Rfc you signed...though of course, the diffs you cite regarding Alison and SirFozzie are just the other day, the rest is really ancient history by wiki standards. It should also be noted that Seabhcan wasn't guilty of just one offense which led to a civility parole on him. Of course, none of that means I have the right to be equally incivil, ever.--MONGO 18:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    A few weeks can be a long time for a new user on a steep learning curve. A year is not so much time for a user with a three year history, especially a year which was available to take a different tack after clear warning. If the last 6 months had been trouble-free, I wouldn't have seen earlier incidents as relevant, but, as it is, they form a continuum. I hope the next 6 months won't. Anyone who can create such a fine image has to be concealing a lot of sensitivity behind that bullish behaviour. The Troubles ArbCom concerned a controversial topic, where the involved parties included 7 admins, some of whom had received considerable abuse at times, yet none of them resorted to it themselves and none received any censure from ArbCom. That is a credit to them and the standard that we need. Tyrenius (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

86. Oppose —Ashley Y 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Do you have a reason? Acalamari 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

87. Oppose, per above. Will consider changing my vote if MONGO waits a bit, and exhibits excellent behavior in this period.Bless sins (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
88. Oppose - I have a bad feeling about this guy. However, if MONGO somehow manages to update Special:Ancientpages, which is apparently no small task, before his RFA is over, let me know as soon as that happens and I'll change my vote to Support! --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    What does this have to do with MONGO's use of the tools? Acalamari 17:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Nothing at all, my assumption (assuming good faith) is that this user is actually opposed for more mundane reasons and is using this RFA as an opportunity to whine about ancientpages. —Random832 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose - agreed with original opposition Prophet0014 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Fantastic! This person created account to-day and reached here after few edits. Please don't teach me the rule that "donot bite the newcomers", some new comers are more intlligent than many! --Bhadani (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Heh, Thanks, Although I do know enough about wikicode to not require a tutorial (I've worked on other wikis) And I DO remember the MONGO incident as an IP user and I was not impressed. Prophet0014 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Fine. I am sure that you will continue with this User ID even after this affair is over. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Confirmed sock/sockmaster by checkuser. Secret ^account 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose Strongly - on the grounds that I was a silent observer to many of MONGO's past provokations whilst a humble reader Unite Against Fascism (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) This user has been blocked indefinitely. TML (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

89. Oppose He has a history of high-handedness that has earned him a succession of RfCs objecting to his behavior. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
90. Oppose This is the exact kind of "admin prospect" who we should be suspicious of as a "wolf in sheeps clothing." His history of incivility and his strong POV suggests that he is not suitable as an admin: and this history is still too fresh for any serious reconsideration of his prospects. BernardL (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    I think "sheep in wolf's clothing" might be a little more accurate. But we're talking about a damn smart sheep here. User:Dorftrottel 03:54, January 24, 2008

    Ja Dlohcierekim 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

91. Strong Oppose Having seen firsthand some of the behaviors displayed by Mongo on politically charged articles (State Terrorism by the US), there is very little doubt that the project is better off with keeping him as a regular editor. I have too much respect for Wikipedia as I think admins are to be role models of sorts; giving im the “mop” is more than that, it is an endorsement of the kind of culture WP embraces by those we as the community elect to be our admins. I have nothing personal against Mongo. He can be a very personable, friendly, and a likable guy in many respects. This is good and I’m glad. However, the problem remains like a giant pink elephant in the room: he has shown over and over that he can't handle editing heated topics and abide by even very basic Wiki behavioral standards we expect of all editors--but especially of our administrators. Sure people can reform but after several Rfc and lots of drama, I did not see that he ever was able cure his tendency for over reaction, or lapse into some very serious policy violations, such as personal attacks, incivility, AGF problems, edit-warring, etc. When Mongo gets emotionally bent out of shape, I’ve seen some very ugly national chauvinism come from his pen, such as attacking “foreigners,” because they are not "American," --in particular a newbie based on his country of national origin, which I find totally unacceptable and reprehensible, in addition to calling his legitimate edit “vandalism,” and making threats of being banned—-all without any good cause other than a mere content disagreement! To be clear, I have no desire to drag out all any mud, show diffs, etc., but it remains true that unfortunately that kind of thing was not a time time insolated incident. Therefore, I’d have to see some serious evidence of tested reform before I feel comfortable supporting an otherwise nice guy for a position of power and authority on WP. Also to be clear, no one disputes that Mongo has always also done good work as an editor on many articles that are not too controversial or political in nature, but his being de-sys op-ed was the best thing for him and for WP; he severs the project better as a regular editor. As an admin I feel we are just inviting more of the same trouble, and intolerable drama, provocation (from both sides) as we have seen about every month before. Giving this kind of thing a symbolic “green light” by the community is the last thing we should do here. Not everyone has the kind of temperament, maturity, and cool handed sophistication that that are necessary qualities for an admin—yes even if they do good work on main article space, and otherwise are likable. In Mongo’s case he doesn’t just fall a little short in these crucial traits to say the least. I do hope he continues to edit here and I still leave my mind open to see him change for the better, but until I see that clear evidence over a longer period of time, just exercising common sense prudence and caution based on the evidence demands that we give a polite but firm rejection to his application for adminship. Still I wish him the best on a personal level. Wait a year and try again. A lot can happen in a year to regain our (or editors like me) trust.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry for intruding in the nice lecture by my friend Giovanni33: Yes, I repeat his own words - I wish him the best on a personal level. Wait a year and try again also apply to you. Please don't again get blocked (around) 45 times [31] (by around 20 different administrators including MONGO) in as many months of your existence here! I wish you good luck for this year though year had opened with a new 24-hour block. All the best with best of regards. --Bhadani (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you, but I'm afraid your count is off. My block log is so cluttered by so many blocks and unblocks, reversals, etc (a mess!) that I don't blame you for not filtering through it carefully. But in actuality there are about 6 legitimate blocks there (that were not quickly overturned by other admins as they were unjustified or mistakes), and all of those 6 occurred in 2006. Then there is only one block on the entire year of 2007. And the one block this year was simply because I forgot to first make a comment on talk, an error that I remedied as soon as I realized it. And, although I've only had two blocks in the past two years, I'm not nominating myself to be an admin. However, if Mongo can rise to the level of conduct that I have on WP, I'd be the first to support him. I wish him luck, and I'm rather proud of my own contributions and conduct on this great project.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    Yes friend, thank you for your clarifying comments though I have not overlooked the points mentioned by you. I respect the spirit of your comments: let us put the past behind and move forward. And, I also presume that you have also forgotten the 10 blocks by Mongo. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    I can't honestly say I remember something that never in fact happened. If you take another look you see see that these alleged 10 blocks by Mongo are actually several "unblocks". I don't think we generally count unblocks as blocks, yes? Also note that several of these were the same block, just extended. So, yes, I counted these, initally, and these occured way back in early 2006. I don't hold any personal grudge against Mongo about his blocks, if that is what you are intimating here. My objection to Mongo is based on the rationale I explained above (although I will say that I have seen him try to get political opponents blocked by board shopping, and I was no exception). I hope he has changed, and I look forward to future good interactions with the new Mongo. Then, I hope he runs again. If he can win me over, then I'm sure he will be able to win most of the rest of his critics.:)The fact the he got in some trouble just two months ago tells me its not enough time yet to see if there has been any real reform.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

92. Oppose, no thanks. Was previously incapable of carrying out the role competently, and I see no change in his recent behaviour that would suggest his competence has improved. Neıl ☎ 09:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
93. Oppose Not enough rationale to become an admin again. Your comment doesn't sound reasonable because you just seem to "enjoy" authority power and did't provide any public pledge how to improve Wikipedia. --Appletrees (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
94. Oppose Catchpole (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    Do you have a reason? Acalamari 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sure he does. But there are several support comments that are simply 'votes' as well. EJF (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    Not at all. I believe it was Dorftrottel who explained this the best: see this. Acalamari 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed. Dlohcierekim 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    I see the "not vote" believers are out in force. I happen to share Kmweber's views on the merits of self-nominations. Catchpole (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

95. Oppose Tendency to over react to drama, accused one user repeatedly of being a sock of different users every time, and has a tendency to edit war. Before anyone says that "one user" I mentioned before was found to be a sock, it took at least 4-5 CUs and an arbcom case as well, all the while MONGO's actions could have been much better in regards to that. Kwsn (Ni!) 13:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
96. Oppose per all the above and clearly this is not the right time. Modernist (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
97. Oppose While I deeply respect MONGO's recent recognition of his incivility in his interactions with editors of opposing viewpoints in his responses to the questions posed above I think at this particular juncture, it is too little too late. The huge number of oppose votes here seem to indicate that the community is polarized on the subject of his adminship. As such, it would be foolhardy to go ahead and grant him adminship. Like Bless Sins, it is my belief that this should not preclude a request for adminship at a later date. If MONGO is genuinely committed to avoiding repetition of the mistakes that led to his de-sysopping and the lack of community trust in his ability to be an impartial and exemplary admin, the record from this point forward until his next adminship request will clearly reflect that. There is no need to rush into restoring his priveleges when the opposition is so great. Tiamut^talk 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
98. Oppose per Cla68 and others. Originally I was opposed to MONGO's defrocking by the Arbcom. I also believed that outside of the issues of 911 conspiracy theories and Encyclopedia Dramatica, he was fairly reasonable and rational. Unfortunately, his words and actions since then have proved me wrong. He is a conflict magnet, who sees the world in Back/White, Good/Bad, Us/Them terms. Worse yet, he can be a persecutor with a demonstrated streak of McCarthyism; If the commies don't readily present themselves, he actively seeks them out, even looking under beds if necessary. Thus he has, sadly, made himself into an embarrassment. The ill-will and controversy he creates have come to outweigh any of his positive contributions. He's had his shot at the mop and blew it...big time (because MONGO doesnt do small:). If you want to look for someone who truly deserves adminship based on their contributions, but who are not as loud and don't have tons of personal or political baggage, then look to Berig or Spawn Man.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    I appreciate your comments during my deadminning very much. I'll do my best to ensure your faith in my editing is restored.--MONGO 07:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    I wish that were the case...I really do. But even if it were, the point is moot given the current math of the situation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

99. Oppose. As fun as it would be, no. -Amarkov moo! 04:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose. Asta Lavista, Baby! 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    This user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

100. Absolutely not appropriate to give the tools back to you Mongo.--VS ^talk 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
101. POV Warrior; Will definitely go Sideways with mop again. - Mailer Diablo 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
102. oppose. I do not trust MONGO with the powers of an admin. I also believe he is requesting adminship in order to validate his contributions. Argyriou (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
103. Oppose. Has demonstrated an inability to separate his opinions from his admin actions. Relata refero (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1.  :O OMG drama – Gurch 10:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Gurch, who puts it best. Rudget. 11:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Some good contributions in the past, but the opposes bring up many strong points. Cirt (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
4. Neutral per Cirt. Spencer^T♦C 12:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral per Gurch, mostly. Also, as much as I respect MONGO and what he has been through the opposes do have valid concerns that require further consideration. Also, MONGO deserves credit for not having reapplied sooner. Despite my doubts I think he is entirely entitled to have a fair RfA. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral for now. MONGO has definitely been a MAGNET for drama, but perhaps that isn't a good reason to oppose. I'd like to see some diffs from opposers during the course of this RfA to backup MONGOs part in the drama-factory. ^Avruchtalk 14:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Take a look at the ArbCom case he was desysopped following, the evidence you request should all be there. It is now up to MONGO to provide evidence that he's changed. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Since its more than a year old, I was hoping for something a bit more recent. ^Avruchtalk 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   I see no reason to assume anything has changed just because time has passed. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   How about this RFC from a few months ago. MONGO refused to participate, on the grounds that it was "harassment", but it contains some much more recent diffs that I found useful in deciding how to vote. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

   If anything, that RfC seems to be weighted in MONGOs favor. By a significant margin, too, including support for him from admins, stewards and Wikimedia reps. ^Avruchtalk 04:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

   Look at the diffs. I'm not saying that MONGO was not provoked (indeed, the trouble seems to happen only when he is provoked, he is quite constructive when nobody is under his skin), but I expect better from a prospective admin than gaming 3RR and inserting material into WP:NPA outside of consensus. His attacking of contributors based on their affiliation with outside sites is also worrying, no matter what (in my opinion, unfair and unreasonable) acts those sites may have taken against him. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

   In the end, the result was that we decided that what exists now at WP:NPA, which emphasized attack links and not attacking sites, were what needs to be regulated. A reading of some findings such as this one may provide insight to some of my positions.--MONGO 05:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

6. Neutral. I'm in the same stance as EconomicsGuy. bibliomaniac15 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Per Gurch. Will ^(talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
8. zOMG drama, but we never have enough of it, really. Миша13 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral Whoo boy... MONGO is a great editor, but this whole issue is a bit too opposable. Jmlk17 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Per Gurch and Misza13. Mønobi 02:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Good user, but some concerns. I can support or oppose, but can't decide so I am voting neutral. NHRHS2010 12:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Neutral I am of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, he's one of the few people who seems to actually care about cleaning up the mess surrounding the various Sept 11 and American political articles. On the other hand, he historically has been a bit overzealous with regards to blocks. Jtrainor (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
13. neutral - I would really like to support, but we don't need MOAR DRAMA, and as shown in recent conversation, the intent has maybe changed, but not enough of the behavior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Neutral. I don't know enough about MONGO to support or oppose him, but I know that this is just another proof that simply being controversial generates enough opposes to sink most candidatures. RfA needs to be reformed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    Sure. Agreed. It (RfA) has probably degenerated into a popularity contest! --Bhadani (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Thirded, so to speak. Despicable slickness and slackness is frequently overlooked or even hailed in candidates. User:Dorftrottel 13:41, January 23, 2008

    Fourthed, Y'all are just now realizing this!? But hey, better Nate than Lever:) It is also why far too many truly deserving candidates, such as those I mentioned above, will likely never be granted the golden mop.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    Actually, this is just another proof that banning someone who you have a conflict with is enough to sink your candidacy. As well it should. This is a fairly rare example* of the system working: MONGO is extraordinarily popular and would be a phenomenally terrible admin, as he has already proven. *Well, fairly rare except for the typical 60/0/2 RFA's that happen fairly often. No problem there. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 19:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

15. Extremely neutral. Ral315 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Neutral. Originally vote oppose for reasons I described in detail, but I was very impressed with MONGO's answers to questions 6 and 7. I still have too many concerns to support but did want to take my vote out of the oppose column. Consider this neutral the equivalent of "try again after 6-9 months of good behavior and I will probably support."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Neutral The answers to question 6 and 7 makes me more confident that you may be ready after a few months of showing this in practice as well. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Not yet. Come back later, like a few months. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    How do you suppose an additional few months' time of editing will affect your opinion? --Iamunknown 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

19. I am concerned about some of the comments made here, but I don't have enough experience with Mongo to support or oppose. --Kbdank71 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
20. The answer to question 7 lands me here. MONGO is dedicated, experienced, knowledgable and often on the "right side" of many disputes. He's also got an absolutely ridiculous amount of baggage associated with his editing history, some completely undeserved, and a considerable portion needlessly exacerbated by his own actions. I doubt I've ever directly interacted with this editor in any substantial way, but I've been lurking here and there long enough to have witnessed a lot...the humble response in Q7 (and the apparent unlikelihood of this passing) make me more comfortable in this section; however, consider me "leaning towards" an oppose. I abhor drama, but I'm an open-minded sort and maybe could be convinced to support in the future if MONGO can further improve his interactions with others. — Scientizzle 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Neutral - Conflicted. The original desysop was a while ago, but I worry about the somewhat more recent edit warring on Wikipedia:No personal attacks (see most of Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks for details - I wasn't involved much, but watched, with horror). On the other hand, that was November which isn't that recent either, and I can't find it in me to oppose someone who writes this. He seems genuinely willing to change, and all those featured articles are very nice ... Neutral. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.