Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

MONGO[edit]

Final (58/14/3) ended 5:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO (talk · contribs): He's an incredibly courteous user, a certified expert on anything regarding national parks, he has 6,107 edits as of the establishment of this rfa[1], and if anyone needs an example of his ability to get past differences for the betterment of the project, I can't think of a better example than my RfA. Heck, there was an attempt to nominate him for an RfA a few weeks ago, and two people voted for him before he even accepted it! If it weren't for the fact that he just went on vacation, that RfA would have passed IMO. We need more people like MONGO as admins. Karmafist 17:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am honored to accept this nomination MONGO 05:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Pre-emptive support Great guy, always civil - persistent and thorough with a cool head in controversy. --Doc ask? 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - again, I thought he was one. --Celestianpower háblame 17:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absent Minded Nominator Support - I used to feel like Lulu, heck I even asked JamesMLane at one point what I could do to stop the POV wars me and him had. That was back when me and MONGO were newcomers. He's a right winger, i'm a left winger. In the real world, we might have disagreements, but on Wikipedia, we're all family: this project supercedes any ideology when you're on here, IMO. I can only hope the rest of the world feels that way about respecting their fellow man someday and rise above their differences. Karmafist 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, MONGO is an OK bloke. — JIP | Talk 15:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support good editor and will be great admin.Gator(talk) 15:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support On wikibreak but spotted this. All of my experiences with Mongo have left me with a great impression. He is both dedicated to wikipedia and helpful. Banes 15:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support seems good.  Grue  15:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cliché #1. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Its about time! I was about to nominate him myself.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - excellent vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 20:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Good editor, I have had positive experiences with him --Rogerd 22:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Private Butcher 23:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support Excellent user another RFA that I got beatin on to nominate --JAranda | watz sup 00:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Merovingian (t)N (c) 00:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. NSLE 00:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support--Duk 01:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - won over by the strength of your answer to question #4. BD2412 T 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. KHM03 04:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support -- I did some research, looked at the answers, and decided that I should be acting in good faith in this matter and voting for support. Regardless of the user's past, he's explained his actions to a degree that satisfies me. I am always willing to give someone a chance if they show the proper attitude, and I think that MONGO shows that attitude. --Martin Osterman 04:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Extreme Cheesehead Support. Nice user, level headed (unlike me) and I honestly thought he was one. :-) --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 22:56, 14 November 2005 (CST)
  21. Support, per the answer to question #4. However, I must say, you've got to work on your temper a little bit. As an admin, you'll be on the front lines against vandalism, and some vandals will go to the point of death threats to continue with their lunacy. I'm confident that you'll learn to stay cool even in those situations. Titoxd(?!?) 05:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, but I second what Titoxd says about your temper.--Sean|Black 05:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Tony Sidaway 06:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) An independent thinker, but fundamentally fair-minded.[reply]
  24. Support Bygones are still bygones. Alf melmac 15:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support — Eoghanacht talk 15:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - No-brainer. --kizzle 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support nobs 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Slam dunk.[reply]
  28. Support --FireFox ™ 18:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Republican senator voting for Justice Breyer or Democrat senator voting for Chief Justice Roberts Support I was going to vote neutral, but I am going to assume good faith here and vote to give this user the mop. I think Mongo will watch his temper and has lightened his POV in recent months. Also, support votes and/or lukewarm opposition by some wikipedians that have had issues with the user in the past help convince me to vote for a qualified, if controvesial, user. Youngamerican 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - I was definitely put off by MONGO's attitude at (then) Wikipedians for Decency, but from what I have seen he has really turned it around. I am happy to support him now. FreplySpang (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I have no reservations. -- Essjay · [[User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 21:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, agree with ArseJay :D Redwolf24 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't insult ArseJay, he might make another RfC against himself to improve himself :D.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Users who go through this type of controversy are some of the best kinds, they know how to deal with POV, while not forgetting that POV users can add to the project. I'm convinced MONGO will do a good job. Smmurphy 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support -- User:Ianblair23 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. I think MONGO will be a fine admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Have always had good interactions, and I believe some claims below are being blown out of proportions. --tomf688{talk} 19:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Has been extremely helpful, and also courteous, and I've noticed him making very numerous helpful changes to a number of articles. Perfect candidate, has patience with all sorts of contributors, from newcomers to angry ideologues, and good judgment. Definitely support. --Daniel11 19:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good candidate. Dwain 22:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Most of the diffs below look bad, but they were from ages ago (one I checked was from Janunary!) I think he's grown since then. Borisblue 07:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, (based on Lulu's objections) I do realise that the most recent diffs come from August, which is still a long time ago. Borisblue 23:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I've rarely read so thoroughly through a user contribs for an RfA as I've done with this one. Agreed, most of the oppose arguments raise my eyebrows, most notably those Mr Tibbs mentioned. Leftist foreigners might also have an opinion worth including. But checking through his last 1,000 or so, there seems to be few POV edits (seemingly none, tho i havent checked them all), or potentially worse, reverts. All the ugly edits seem to date from August or so. Admittedly, this is strange, as you would expect somebody who has been with WP since January to know better. Nonetheless, he seems to have picked up on the criticism. I especially found his remarks on User talk:Agriculture on everybody just doing their best to reach NPOV very positive (hopefully he includes leftist foreigners in this show of AGF ;-) ), and i find his work since then to be excellent, especially in vandal reverting. The Minister of War 11:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to butt in here and say that it's not just the Edit Summaries of the diffs I cited that you should be looking at. For instance, of the two recent August edits I cited: [2] [3]. The first one has an offensive Edit Summary: "rv, antiwar foreigners pushing their POV". But the Second one [4] purposely compromises the integrity of the article to make a point by inserting things like " (which never happened)". It's not just an edit summary issue. It's a POV issue as well as an article integrity issue. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. TacoDeposit 15:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. After careful review of his history, I am changing my vote to Support TheChief (PowWow) 22:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, should be no big deal. Seems to have learned a lot since he got here. silsor 23:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, 'n stuff. TDC 05:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - His positive contributions vastly outweigh the missteps of his past. – ClockworkSoul 06:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support --pgk(talk) 18:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Humorous and fun, but need to watch out a bit with his humor. :-) --Nlu 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. MONGO has done great work on George W. Bush and other articles. Rhobite 23:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Strong and resilient in the face of vandals on Bush's page. Just keep your head in disputes, and you'll be a great admin. Harro5 03:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Weak support. I have been impressed by the level head he's kept on this RfA, and he has assured me that his recent offensive edit summaries were meant jokingly. I've done the same myself (as has User:Babajobu, who I nominated not so long ago). MONGO can rest assured, though, that I'll be (metaphorically) defeaning him with the aid of a (metaphorical) bullhorn held (metaphorically) at close range if I imagine he doesn't show proper respect for non-Americans in the future ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Speaking of metaphors, if I'm doing the right deviation thing here, might as well take it the whole the way. With great trepidation, etc. El_C 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support freestylefrappe 16:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Looks fine to me. Shanes 20:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong affirmative action Support, a good, helpful user, and conservative rural Americans are an exotic species among admins. Babajobu 18:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Note for the bureaucrat(s) looking at this RfA: This vote and the votes below it in this section were made after voting ended. --Idont Havaname 21:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I appreciate his handling of the talk page of George W. Bush; clearly one who survives in this environment will be comfortable in easier situations. Rama 21:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Izehar 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Derktar 02:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  58. Support. Seems to have learned from past mistakes. --GraemeL (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. My experience with MONGO was via Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit, and various talk pages that spun off that, where he was consistently belligerent and confrontational with multiple editors (including myself). Moreover, much of his confrontation was around him pushing very POV political opinions. A look at MONGO's user talk page shows a lot of further rancor as well. (followup: MONGO's below answer shows a growth of maturity; however, additional evidence located by Mr. Tibbs is troubling too. I think less than 3 months of good interaction is not quite enough; I would support the nomination in another 3 months if those see good cooperation) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I was actively involved in the AfD debate for WPWfem too, and I and MONGO were on opposing sides. Still, his arguments were good, and I haven't had further bad experience with him. The only person on the AfD debate I really disliked turned out to be a troll. — JIP | Talk 16:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There were post AFD issues that I hope MONGO will elaborate on below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There were numerous trolls on that PfD(project AfD) and perhaps MONGO got caught in the heat of things over-reacted to legitimate users. Nevertheless, his agruments, as JIP noted were well-thought out. He is one of the most polite editors I have come across.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I'm afraid I must object. When the WikiProject for Encyclopedic Merit was originally founded, MONGO spent a lot of time arguing (and edit warring) about which usernames were allowed on its membership roster, leading eventually to the page being protected. I don't find that attitude very constructive. Radiant_>|< 17:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He was removing obvios IP vandal "members" with no other edit history or people who explained there membership by statements in opposition to the group. Perhaps the edit warring was worse than I thought...but I doubt it.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 18:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC) (Lulu: i.e. repeated deletions of memberships of FCYTravis, Zoe, Ngb, User:172.130.8.51, Sdedeo, Morwen, Hipocrite, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, etc. who disagreed with MONGO)[reply]
    All of the people removed, by there comments there, where obviously against the project, so why did they "join" in the first place. I don't go over and join Moveon.org clubs and interest group sectors just because I oppose them. I can't say "I join and [tacitly] support this group because I disagree and oppose it". While I don't agree with edit warring over it, and it is a bit bold to remove names other than that IP troll, I can certainly see were he was coming from. Considering all of the "anti-censorship" argument venom, he likely saw this as a ploy ar the time, and not a good faith effort to join WfEM. I dont see this as a reason to vote oppose.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see where he was coming from, but the fact that he kept doing it despite being repeatedly told not to, by various people, does not speak well for him. Those people where not against the project, rather they had a different view of "encyclopedic merit" than Mongo did. I respect your opinion and I would appreciate it if you would respect mine. Radiant_>|< 23:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that, but he is a changed man ;-). As for respecting others opinions, I don't mind someone voting oppose for this, but I just disagree with it...:-).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose, ditto above objections. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. As above. This sort of edit war, especially when carried on by sockpuppets (84.67.79.63, 81.79.117.98, 84.68.242.172) to avoid breaking 3RR, does not inspire confidence. — Dan | Talk 02:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that edit warring is bad, and I was wrong to do so. However, your accusation that I used a sock puppet account at any time is baseless and completely incorrect. I log in from two locations and one is IP 68.13.94.113 [10] and the other is IP 63.113.14.5 [11]. Both originate from Omaha, NE. U.S.A., which is where I live. IP 84.67.79.63 is from the U.K. [12] IP 81.79.117.98 is also from the U.K. [13], and IP 84.68.242.172 is as well [14]. If you still feel that I use or have used a sock puppet account, then by all means ask David Gerard to check me out. MONGO 04:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    On reconsideration, I withdraw my vote. — Dan | Talk
  4. Strong oppose as per the reasons above. Mongo does not have the temperament for adminship. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Radiant. Too controversial for adminship at this time. Xoloz 05:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose our interaction is brief and limited, but the context was hostile on the part of MONGO, making unfounded accusations of disruptive behavior (the behavior in question was asking on talk pages for supporting evidence on the talk pages of interested parties). TheChief (PowWow) 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    After recieving a response, I am removing my opposition. TheChief (PowWow) 19:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Radiant. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose -- A cursory glance at this user's article edit history reveals many destructive edits. Some of them even with inflammatory statements in the Edit Summary like: "It looks like foreigners and leftists wish to control this page....good luck!" [15]. Some other edits following this pattern: [16] [17] [18]. And it's not just the Bush article either, here are some more recent ones: [19] [20] -- Mr. Tibbs 07:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes...I might have to change to Weak Support or Neutral...that is very disturbing. I believe that he has apologized over edit warring over WfEM member lists, but this is another matter. Sheesh, he has to stop these kind of edit summaries.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 13:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked through his contributions and it should be noted that he has not done anything like that in months. So I suppose Mr. Tibbs's issues are old news.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Object. Disruptive actions in August are far too recent for me to support now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, nothing to do with the decency/encyclopedic merit project this time, though Mr. Tibb's edit summaries above are very interesting. But my main reason is the only intervention by MONGO I've seen, in a dispute between User:172 and User:Silverback in October. I thought him unreasonable and biased then. He did aboutface in the end, seeming to become aware of the untenableness of his original position, but hardly in a gracious way. He used WP:AN in the "I don't have time to do the research but here's a thought anyway" (not a real quote) manner that the ArbCom has criticized in a recent case. Some examples: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. Here's the long tail of the WP:ANI conversation, on El C's page, where MONGO again defends his statements about "tit for tat" and his continuing absence of evidence: "I won't take a stand on who is right or wrong...just saw that there was some tit for tat...It's all part of the same bantering [sic] back and forth." Here's an apology for one particular, minor, comment, inlined in the noticeboard thread two days later (=rather hard to find). That's good, and was well-intentioned, I'm sure. But it isn't much. If I've left out anything of import I ask MONGO to tell me so. The praise in the Support section presumably refers to other cases; perhaps I just caught the user at a bad moment, and I will certainly review again if there's a second nomination some time from now. I have some sympathy, as he seemed to be rather short of time, but it seems to me an important principle that admins know to walk away from what they don't really have the time gain an understanding of. Do nothing rather than do harm. "Let somebody else fix it" is a great wiki principle. Apologies for the length, but I felt I needed to explain this vote. Bishonen|talk 19:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen, I was trying to keep 172 and Silverback from arguing and it appears I did a lousy job as an Rfc was quickly filed against Silverback right after that. I told Silverback to "ceasefire" and I tried to get those two to simply leave each other alone for a while. I think what I have learned in Wikipedia is that if two warring parties step back, even if one is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong, that maybe there is a way to reunite after the steam blows off and compromise. I later talked to 172 here (with his responses being here) and suggested mediation and to see if there was anyway to avoid a long drawn out series of Rfc's, and then probable arbitration. The conversion between 172 and myself, ended most pleasently I thought. In all honesty, as a completely outside third party, I was only trying to see if I could play mediator...I should have just let them go about their business. Do good faith attempts to try and resolve hostilities between two users go punished around this place. I recognize it may appear that I took a stand but I was only trying to demostrate that it does take two to have a war...and two to make a peace.--MONGO 19:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so impressed by Mongo's response here, but as El C says below, there's a much different one on my Talk, and I've been giving this opposition some thought since that was posted. If a disgraceful lefty like El C can withdraw his Oppose, I can withdraw mine. Bishonen|talk 11:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
    P. S. /me retreats hastily in hail of rotten vegetables. That was a joke about El C being disgraceful! I love him! Sheesh! Now I know how MONGO feels! --Bishonen|talk 11:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    *Kissess* I sorta want him to win now. He's deeply reactionary, but he likes mountains, if that makes any sense... El_C 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I'm troubled by the concerns brought up by multiple users. Gamaliel 19:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose- offensive username. Astrotrain 21:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhh, didn't you ever see Blazing Saddles? At worst, Mongo's making fun of himself. --kizzle 21:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Very funny, but, seriosuly, that's not your real reason is it? If so, I would hope the bureacrat will not count that as an oppose. I wouldn't even change the counter to reflect this oppose vote (as it stnads at least). Please explain.Gator (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What more explanation do you need? MONGO is an offensive term, and not an appropiate username for an admin. My oppose vote is genuine, and should not be discounted. Astrotrain 13:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the stated reason for this oppose vote is silly. But no sillier than the stated support from Borisblue (who points out that some questionable behavior is from January, which tries to insinuate away all the links to edits in August). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, to clarify, I meant that some of the diffs go back to Jan. I know the most recent problems come from August (still a long time), but the fact that you're digging up dirt on him from 10 months ago is just unwarranted IMHO. A lot changes happen in 10 months. Borisblue 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, Borisblue. I did not find the January diffs myself, but I can see their relevance. If it was only during a "bad week" in August that MONGO edited with excessive rancor, that would be a simple glitch. But if he had done similar things much earlier as well (but it seems like only intermittently), that puts context on the August edits. I entirely agree that MONGO has been polite and respectful since early September. To my mind, 2.5 continuous months is not quite enough good behavior for adminship (after earlier problems), but 6 months would be—in fact, MONGO and I had a very cordial discussion of this on my user talk page. My personal 6 month standard is completely unofficial, but it is roughly the guideline I have in mind for my personal oppose vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I am making fun of myself! But actually a few buddies called me Mongo as a kid due to my size. I'm 6'7" and 275 (though, of course not that big then) and the movie Blazing Saddles was a big hit way back then. Anyhoo.--MONGO 21:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Enough volume of troubling concerns raised that makes me not comfortable with MONGO's promotion at this time. A few more months of trouble free editing and I'm sure you'll be a shoe in. - Taxman Talk 15:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. "Foreigners" can edit here too. Smit 16:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC) After some explanations that he was joking at certain points, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and withdraw my opposition. Smit 02:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. The whole Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit thing just scares me - I'm having trouble seeing past what appear to be bad faith edits and opinions that relate to this project and spill over into the 'pedia proper. Sorry. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    15.I probably would not have voted (even notwithstanding my own interaction with MONGO which Bishonen outlined above, not only since I was the one who temporarily? suspended it, but largely in light of a good introspective response recently on her talk page), but highly disturbing edit summaries from Aug. are too recent for me. I have little doubt that if he fails this nomination, he will win the next one. I am troubled that someone could think so parochially, even if they manage to hide that they do (in which case, we wouldn't know). That said, work in the area of (American) national parks is highly commendable (I would have liked more of my counterpart oppose voters to acknowledge this to his credit) and is endearing to myself, personally. I've been to well-over half the states in the U.S. and the national parks have always been and remain the highlight for me on such trips. His measured conduct throughout this RfA has been impressive. El_C 23:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC) — MONGO explained to me that this was meant as a joke (highly untactcful as it may be), and that he dosen't actually think in such xenophobic terms. Thus, withdraw my opposition. El_C 08:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. It seems that, for the most part, when MONGO comes to my attention, it's been for the wrong reasons. That could be that he edits under my radar much of the time, but the other oppose votes above suggest this is not the case. The edit summaries from August cast a long, dark shadow over the time since then, and I'm not yet certain that enough water has passed under enough bridges to lend my support at present: any editor with that in their past, and the misbehviour on the project does, imo, need to pass a noticeably higher bar before my fears are satisfactorily laid to rest. One point in particular: do not get involved in situations unless you are prepared to do all the necessary legwork — it looks bad, feels bad and, as turned out here, doesn't usually work. Still, I'm sure there's plenty to learn from in this RfA, so a few more months solid, sound editing and good-things-on-the-radar should be in the offing. -Splashtalk 03:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Managing to be civil and measured for one week during the RfA doesn't excuse previous actions. Proto t c 10:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Redvers and Radiant, and I generally agree with Carbonite's past reason for opposing. One week of good behavior is rather easy to do, but I'd like to see MONGO in the trenches for a few more months before supporting, particularly in light of his involvement with Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit (the AfD for that brought a lot of concerns over censorship, and WP:NOT censored. I was among the editors that said that the existence of that WikiProject went against our policies.). Also, removing established editors from a WikiProject if they have listed themselves there is wrong, and borders on vandalism. --Idont Havaname 20:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've struck out my vote because I voted after the voting ended (so did the voter above me, and presumably several others). It was my mistake; this RfA was still at the main page of WP:RfA at the time that I had voted, and I didn't notice when the closing time was. (At any rate, if this RfA were still open I would have switched to neutral based on a message that MONGO had left on my talk page.) --Idont Havaname 21:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Evolving, Please see question 4 below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dodged my questions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Neutral "I was wrong to remove names" was actually not in your initial response to question 4, which led me to believe you were defending the practice. I'll happily bygones the incident, now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is strong neutral, not that I mind it...:-)?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I have strong feeling about this situation, but cannot determine which of my strong feelings are correct. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Strong support offered." MARMOT 00:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Yikes. I'm very concerned about those edit summaries, and bishonen also brings up some very interesting points. I personally don't know enough about MONGO to vote support or oppose either way, and I'll be upfront: I'm only looking at the votes and diffs of the supporters/opposers. I will keep a neutral stance for the moment, but as stated earlier, I'm concerned about those diffs above. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I was seriously considering supporting, until I read the oppose votes. User:Bishonen raises some good points (do we really need admins who aren't willing to do the work themselves?), but the deal-breaker is those edit summaries, particularly this one. I realise it was quite a while ago – otherwise I'd be voting oppose right now – but I'm far from convinced that the ignorant, idiotic mindset that would describe other good-faith editors on a supposedly international website as "foreigners" is the sort of thing that could vanish overnight. Has MONGO grown up, or simply learned not to say certain things that he still believes? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. It's obvious that MONGO has made huge strides since he first joined Wikipedia. I think he's conducted himself very well during this RfA. However, many of the diffs provided by oppose voters above are too recent for me to support. I'm a strong believer that a "clear the air" RfA is often very beneficial for users whose past may have some blemishes. Assuming there are no incidents in the next few months, I will support any future RfA. Carbonite | Talk 14:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) I've been impressed enough with MONGO's conduct during this RfA to withdraw my opposition. Carbonite | Talk 18:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'd like to say one thing. Even though I nominated him, if this rfa was going on any time before July or August, i'd probably be a Strong Oppose. He was a Right Wing POV Warrior just like I was a Left Wing POV Warrior in our collective early edits. However, it's my opinion that the WFD imbroglio changed him(I was there and voted strongly against it.), which is best evidenced by this thread and that link I put above. I don't know about anyone else, but in my opinion the most liberal thing anyone can do is sow the seeds of peace whenever the opportunity arises, and despite any other views or disagreements we might have in the future,it's my view that MONGO did that post-August. Karmafist 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is shaping up to be a very close RfA, I've gone and done a bit more thorough look into MONGO's article edit history. I found some interesting edits to the Ray Nagin article in September: [32] [33] [34] [35]. He mention's "foreign newspaper" in his edit summary of the first two edits. I also took a look at his talkpage edits around that time: [36] I also wanted a to take a deeper look into the reasons behind MONGO's August 2003 Invasion of Iraq edits that I cited earlier. Here are his other edits to that article at that time: [37] [38]. And apparently MONGO has made no discussion on the talkpage of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article around that time, however I did find some talkpage edits from earlier in April: [39][40]. I have also found some interesting October talkpage edits: [41] [42]. MONGO also has quite a lot of good edits to National Park articles and vandalism reversion edits. But the Ray Nagin article edits and some of the talkpage cites appear to me to only reaffirm my Strong Opposition to this RfA. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I especially like this citation you provide, in which every respondant was in agreement with me.[43]. Mr. Tibbs, I fully respect your vote of "Strong Opposition", and again explain that you are taking my edits out of context. I use the term foreign newspaper when discussing Ray Nagin only in that it is an opinion piece, and not a news piece and that since I am not particularily in favor of opinion pieces unless they are called as such, I see such opinion discussion in a non U.S. newspaper as having even less "encyclopedic merit" than I would in an American newpaper when in discussion on an American topic. I am not a bigot, nor am I opposed in any ay to "foreigners"...my girlfriend Ivana is Croatian. The cites above in which I say "foreigners" as a joke on Rama (which I don't think he thought were "funny" either) were absolutely an attempt to humor him since the two of us had had more heated arguments back in January during discussions in the George W Bush pages. Trust me on this one, I usually respect the international press a lot more than I do the corporate led American press anyway. I just wwant to make it clear that I am most assuredly not opposed to non Americans. I was on the side defending the Ray nagin article against a concerted attempt by a series of strong POV attacks by those utilizing sockpuppet accounts and doing all they could to create an attack page on Ray Nagin. The talk pages for that article clearly show this to be true. I regret my choice of "jokes" and it was wrong for me to assume that others would find them funny. They were definitely in bad taste.MONGO 08:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess that article was at the time, nonstop. Unincidentally, I've just reverted it, a full ten days after the prior edit. :) El_C 13:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I think it was one of the more heavily POV pushes I've seen by what may have possibly been paid political webspammers. Interestingly, their "evidence" was really weak, especially when confronted by Wikipedians!MONGO 13:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I thought: they were payed. It was just so unremitting yet monolithic. Seems the pro-Nagin forces didn't have access to such funds (→ note that this is all part of the indoctrination process on the part of yours truly!). El_C 14:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, if it was a joke, why did you make legimate spelling corrections in the middle of that series of edits? Why did you tag the article as POV at the same time as well? Here are all of MONGO's edits to that article in August arranged in chronological order from past to most recent: [44][45][46][47] [48]. All that seems to be a lot of trouble to go to for a "joke". Honestly, how can an edit with the summary: "Article suffers from systemic bias" be part of an attempt at humor? And more than that, is an article's integrity expendable to you for the sake of humor? Tagging an article as POV or inserting comments as a "joke" strikes me as very irresponsible. ( Doubleposted here: [49] ) -- Mr. Tibbs 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was also questioned about the wording here [50] and I should have made a better examination of the wording used. It is a valid point that no one can "know" what other people "think" but my point was that, {and I still believe this to be true), there are speeches and legislation that were passed, some of which was through the United Nations, that Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat to the stability of the region. I don't think the choice of wording was best, and I could have made a better argument then I know. Repeated UN resolutions and the continuation and even the occasional escalation of actions regarding the "no-fly" zone and sanctions against Saddam and his rule also coorelate with conceptualizations that Saddam was a threat. I'll certainly not argue now that he was capable of launching a true military attack against the U.S., yet I agree with the legislation passed during the 1990's and early into the 21st century such as UN Security Council Resolution 1441, that Saddam was a continuing "problem". As far as inserting the NPOV tag, I should have discussed that in the associated talk page, at least after I did it and explained why I did it. A contenious issue regarding something like the Iraq War and George Bush should always have a heavy engagement in talk before making such changes, or at least after. As I stated, Rama, I am sure, saw no humor in my editing and my choice of word play was provocative, but it wasn't filled with malice in any way. Susequent spelling corrections are due to habit, perhaps a problem with precision, or because I may be anal about word choices? An article such as the one cited is going to have some strong opinions associated with it at times, mine being one of them. I won't be an apologist for the 2003 Iraq War, but I will for my choice of wording at that time and for the misconception that my choice of wording seems to have fostered in some that I am or seem to be opposed to people who are not from the U.S., which is certainly not the case. It should be noted that some of those edits were intended to be a joke, exaggeration, preposterous to a degree and you're right, article integrity shouldn't have suffered just because I wanted to play a game of sorts. I will state that I did have a problem with the choice of words "create closure", "humiliated" and "failed" and saw them as being extremely POV and I did counterargue them with the one edit, though I certainly could have done a better job explaining why. Are you questioning my right to refute such unreferenced passages or my right to be bold?--MONGO 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it a little hard to swallow that those awful edit summaries were actually a very funny joke. Why has this reason taken...3 months...to turn up? -Splashtalk 03:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Splash, I never said they funny, they were intended more as a "rib" in the side to other users. They were poor choices of words. Since no one else appears to have complained about them till now is why it has taken 3 months for them to be addressed. Aside from the comment on my talk page, which questioned one passage, no one else seems to have been greatly offended, Though I have yet to converse with anyone else that may have been offended. As I stated before, I was wrong to use such edit summaries and to give anyone the false impression that I am some kind of ugly American. I think it is good that Mr. Tibbs has brought these issues regarding edit summaries and my choice of editorial quality to my attention, and I wish now that I had done a better job choosing my words and providing citable sources for my refutation of commentary.--MONGO 06:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I've been doing some RC patrol and routinely get beat out on reverts of vandalism therefore the Admin tools would help me better contribute in this area and fight vandalism. The ability to speedy delete nonsense articles and block repeated vandals would be of great help as well. I would also particpate in closing out AFD's ensuring I always follow the rule of rough consensus as a bare minimum.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Though I have yet to bring an article up to featured status, I have started over 75 articles, almost all of them regarding areas of land management. I suppose I am most proud of Shoshone National Forest, though I still have plans to greatly expand it in detail. There is so much yet to do! I also believe that I helped for some time to bring the George W Bush article more in line with WP:NPOV policies.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have been known to come across as somewhat combative, especially in my earlier edits, but my wording then was always more abrasive than my true sentiments. I feel as though everyone I have met here is my friend to some degree and truly believe that the vast majority of editors here are all trying to do the right thing. I have had conflicts with some editors such while working on the George W Bush article yet feel that even in this case, some who I may have been harsh with and still have disagreement with in terms have content, are people that, like me are trying to make the articles as neutral and informative as possible. I try and make an effort to extend an olive branch as often as possible.
4. The conflict at Decency/Encyclopedic Merit Debacle (DEMD) was long and difficult, so I have a long multipart question-info request. I am hard-pressed to determine my vote, but I am certain it will have "Strong" in front of it.
1. Briefly describe the genesis and timeline of the DEMD.
2. Briefly describe the major arguments of the major players to the DEMD. If categorizing players into constituencies helps, please do so.
3. Briefly describe actions taken by the major players/constituencies to the DEMD, and categorize from your current perspective which of those actions were either A. Serious Wrongs, B. Minor Wrongs, C. Irellevent or D. Helpful to the Encyclopedia.
4. Would you have done anything differently if you could turn back the clock to the start of the DEMD? What? Why?
5. What do you think my answer to question 4 would be?
Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These questions (with the possible exception of 4.4) are quite outrageous and improper, and I would strongly urge MONGO to ignore them. This RfA is about whether or not we can trust MONGO with admin tools, it is not about 'DEMD'. Why should MONGO provide a history lesson? And why on earth would MONGO want to describe the arguments of other users, or categorize users into consitituencies, or pass value judgements on their actions?? (THe last would be quite impproper.) Why should he second guess Hipocrite's views?? What type of agenda lies behind this? I'm damned if I know. Doc ask? 16:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will clarify my questions after MONGO answeres them or refuses to do so. Understanding and passing value judgements on actions accurately is, in my opinion, central to being a good admin. My adjenda is to gain additional information about an incident that MONGO neglected to discuss in the standard questions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable to hope that MONGO has learned from (one of) the long conflicts he was an instigator of. If answers suggest that behavior was a thing of the past, I might be convinced (similar to Karmafist's support vote). Answers to questions like Hipocrite's might help show this. The fact MONGO has political opinions I disagree with is not at all a problem (many good admins do), it's the fact he used to let those political opinions bias his editing behavior and turn towards belligerence towards disagreeing editors. But as per my oppose vote, I have not had contact with MONGO for several months, so he may have grown out of that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I told myself, I would not argue against oppose votes and am am not going to do so. Lulu and Hypocrite are fully entitled to their right to voice their opinion and from those opinions I can only learn the best way for me to contribute to Wikipedia in the most pro-active manner possible. I need to clarify that I do not consider myself to be a "right-winger" but I altogether understand why many others may see it that way, especially if they come from outside the U.S. where politics, especially lately, have been less conservative. I was a later arrival to the WikiProject for Decency and was surprised to see that other members had been tagging articles and images with a "decency" tag...something I openly stated that I was opposed to doing. I clearly stated that I wanted to both change the scope and direction of the project and as soon as the Vfd for the project ended with "no concensus" I commenced altering the scope of the project [51], [52] I then changed the title to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit [53]. I had hoped, using a basis of a few of the aspects of the original decency project, to develop more of a think tank or discussion group which could iron out the best path to continue to ensure that Wikipedia would become, or at least would develop into, the most reliable web based encyclopedia there is. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was initially in support of my title change and attempts to redirect the focus of the project. There was an argument between numerous editors what this new scope should be and over who should remain as members in light of the fact that the project had changed, both in title and direction and some of the previous members had signed on in what appeared to be, from my vantage point, an attempt to play spoiler. I did remove a few names from the members list, yet stopped doing so when asked by one member. I was removed by unknown editors too [54], [55]. I think that Lulu and I both withdrew from the "battle" because we are both mature enough to know when to stop and when to recognize when a project is essentially dead. My last edit was to try once again to take the project in the direction it needed to go, but I believe that there already is a similar area which is more in keeping with my sentiments anyway, without the controversies! I think that a few users here deserved an answer regarding these issues but continue to urge all those who vote to do so based on their true sentiments so that if this nomination fails, I can learn from it and become a better contributor.--MONGO 19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This non-answer did not address my concerns. "You have violated your administrative powers with this protection of the wrong version" was said in all seriousness by MONGO. You didn't stop because someone asked you to -> [56] [57] you stopped because the page got protected. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked by Zoe to stop removing names from the project membership [58] and explained why I was removing names to her here[59]. She reverted my removal just prior to her warning to me. I did not remove anyone's name after she did her revert. However, you removed Noitall [60] and then another user [61] were then reverted by Noitall [62] and then Noitall struck your name out [63] you then reverted him [64] and it was after this edit war you were engaged in with Noitall that Radiant! then protected the page [65]. No doubt I was combative, and I was wrong for being so. I argued with Zoe about the purpose of her membership, but did not remove her name or anyone else's after she asked me to stop. The page protection was 4 days after I last removed anyone's name and was after you and Noitall were edit warring over the issue. I am disappointed that I have been accused of sockpuppet use to avoid 3RR and that you have wrongfully stated that I only stopped removing names because of the page protection. I stopped because Zoe asked me to do so. Please provide proof to the contrary.--MONGO 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for adminship/Hipocrite is a redlink. You were told to stop removing names here. The page was protected to stop you and a bunch of anonymous IPs from removing names here. I did not remove noitall, as a reading of my diff would make clear.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did remove names 7 hours prior to the page being protected at that time. In the meantime, you and Lulu were combating an anon or series of anons and then the page was protected, more than 10 edits later, none of which were mine.[66] I stated above that you had removed Noitall, what I meant was that you removed his comment. After only a three hour page protection, the page was unprotected and that is when an anon removed my name twice as I mentioned above. I do not know what your redlined link Requests for adminship/Hipocrite is in reference to. I thought we had buried the hatchet and I do not understand how I can better answer your questions. I am disappointed that you are still angry with me about this as that is the last thing I would want. As I stated, I was wrong to remove names from the project and I am sorry I was rude to you and the others I offended with this action.--MONGO 15:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, he meant you're the one on the spot, not him. El_C 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MONGO&oldid=1086095018"