User talk:MONGO/Archive27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Now what?

Cla68...once again, I remind myself of your excellent FA work and thank you for those articles. However, I see you are working on another potential Rfc here...what exactly is the problem between you and Slim? I would like to once again ask you to resume your excellent article work and well, let bygones be bygones. I thought this issue was long dead by now...why is it still festering?--MONGO 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review my evidence in the Matanmoreland ArbCom case. Since the events detailed in that case occured, there has appeared to be a continued history of problematic editing by this editor. In looking at the editor's talkpage history, I was surprised by the number of disputes between her and other editors, many of whom are, like yourself, frequent contributors to quality, NPOV articles and not normally in dispute with other editors. I believe a review of this editor's editing history by the community is past due. Please feel free to join in drafting the RfC and, of course, commenting on it once it is posted. Cla68 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination)

I have nominated Philip H. Farber for deletion. You previously contributed to an earlier AfD on this article and it was suggested that I notify you of the current AfD. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cheers, Pigman☿ 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • hi-five* Hopefully this will allow you and the other folks to shoo away some of the Loose Change-ites. Jtrainor (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not confident that this remedy will apply except to the worst of the POV pushers. Others whose work is less obviously POV pushing and always maintains civility etc. will continue to be problematic and will be tough to get sanctions imposed.--MONGO 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If you ask me, ArbCom's solution was no solution at all. Enigma message Review 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Question 2

Hi. I previously asked you a question about some IP accounts. See the section "Question" above. You said that the first four were from San Francisco. How can one see this? WHOIS for the first IP seems to indicate that the provider is in Mt Laurel, NJ? I am considering a RFCU to see if this is a banned user since similar IPs continue to edit the US state terrorism article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

76.126.64.74 US UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS INC is what my source states. You will need to see who else adds similar info and also if there is evidence of someone using various IP's to evade 3RR.--MONGO 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Further...you may want to see the editing history of this IP...it seems to help provide a clue...and comes from the exact same provider....
76.102.72.153 US UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS INC see:76.102.72.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)--MONGO 10:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Another link from the just mentioned IP address...and this looks to be Giovanni33, who is under arbcom restriction.--MONGO 10:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that edit does look that way. What happened was that that DHeyward restored very old warnings that the IP user had removed some time ago. I saw this (since both of them and myself were involved at the article around the same time, and I was leaving a message to the IP user not to violate 3RR)--and I reverted DHeywards edit to restore the talk page the way the IP user had it (leaving only the new warnings). Well DHeyward reverted me, but I walked away. Later when I read that DHeyward seemed to be on a 1RR, but was reverted twice on the article, I left him a "warning" asking him about that. He reverted my message. Again, no big deal. The IP user came back and undid DHeward's revert that restored the old warnings on his page, and then went to DHeward's page and restored my warning to DHeward (very pointy). Even doing it twice. I hope that makes some sense. I'd never violate my probation intentionally, and this would be akin go going back to using socket puppets, which I'd never do.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Another user did a RFCU which was inconclusive.[1] You said earlier above that Bmedley Sutler/Fairness And Accuracy For All could be related to the IPs previously discussed. Any concrete evidence? Ultramarine (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to do some digging...but I thought Sutler was blocked for evading his ban as FAAFA...
Giovannii33...the only reason you didn't get banned outright is because I supported lax restrictions on you. I am the one who proposed a 1RR restriction at the workshop page on your case, so be thankful I didn't ask for more...I'm thinking that continuing to coddle those that do nothing but POV push is the wrong thing to do...topic, in in more extreme cases, outright bannings are the only way to save this website from those that misuse it to promote the ridiculous.--MONGO 05:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You are blocked for 1 week under this ArbCom ruling following the incivility in the edit summary of this edit despite being warned to remain civil. --Tango (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How on earth do these people become Admins in the first place? Giano (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tango. (1 == 2)Until 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Unblocked, per general agreement at AN/I that the block was excessive and was for an incident leading from what could be interpreted as earlier provocation from the blocking admin. There was some concern in the discussion about your conduct, and the unblock is "per time served" rather than a negation of the block, so please be aware of the discussion on AN/I. Orderinchaos 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am autoblocked...--MONGO 15:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seemed my "per time served" was not entirely in line with the actual consensus at AN/I, so have reblocked for the equivalent of what the community feels it should have been (31 hours - or 29 from the present) in order to avoid a WP:WHEEL violation on my own behalf. Orderinchaos 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with suggestions in the AN/I discussion, I am placing you under indefinite Civility Restriction. Any incivility on your part anywhere on this site will result in further blocks, of increasing length. --Tango (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Tango has the authority to make such a ruling, nor was such indicated by consensus at AN/I. I oppose this on much the same grounds as I opposed MickMacNee being placed by a single admin under a 6 hour "topic ban". Such things should always originate from and be approved by the community. Orderinchaos 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Usually, such things require consensus. The ArbCom ruling, however, allows for an uninvolved admin (which I am) to unilaterally impose such restrictions. If there is a consensus to remove it, then so be it. Such as consensus has not been established. --Tango (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You are not an uninvolved admin now, and you are treating it as if it is some official thing, with capital letters and everything. You do not have this authority, and I strongly suggest you abandon this whole issue altogether, as your continued presence in the argument is only eroding your position further. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find absolutely no consensus to impose it. There are pro-MONGO people, anti-MONGO people, and people like myself who think the whole thing is ridiculous and we should concentrate on building an encyclopaedia. I have opposed MONGO in the past on various things, but honestly can't see why the heavy artillery is necessary in this situation. Drama helps nobody, and the intensity with which you've gone in on this one leads to some questions about judgment, to be honest. Were this to have come from ArbCom (or clerks thereof) themselves, I'd have accepted it as they would actually have considered the relevant facts necessary to make a decision and I trust their judgment. Orderinchaos 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I am an uninvolved admin, per the definition given in the ruling. That ruling allows restrictions such as the one I imposed to be issued unilaterally, so it doesn't matter if there is a consensus for it or not. What matters is that there is not a consensus to remove it. As for the capital letters - I was quoting the name from Wikipedia:Community sanctions (although, admittedly, it's not capitalised there). It *is* an official thing. --Tango (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The block is preposterous..Tango has previously had some snide comments to me and about me. I was not rude or incivil and indeed, Thomas Basboll is a single purpose account and one that is here solely to edit a few articles and promote conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. I demand to be unblocked so that I can properly protest this horrible block made simply because I didn't bow down to the Tango...I will NOT BE ABUSED BY ABUSIVE administrators on this website. He didn't like my revert of his ill concieved warning and my edit summary...that is a horrible reason to block...an Rfc is imminent..>I don't know who you think you are but continued harassment by you will make me use whatever means I have available to ensure you never abuse your admin tools again.--MONGO 15:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
An RFC once your block has expired would be a very productive way have handling your difference of opinion. I look forward to seeing the case you present. (1 == 2)Until 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Orderinchaos 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You do not need to be unblocked to protest the block. There is a discussion ongoing at AN/I, and I'm sure the people there will be more than happy to come here to read your comments on the matter. Request denied. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Incredible...you are abusive for sure...I am absolutely mesmerized by your ongoing misuse of your tools and position. I was not incivil..you just didn't like your authority being questioned...what an unbvelievable abuse of power.--MONGO 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You know the thing that bothers me about this website - The POV pushers that want to soapbox the project with fringe views scream when they are not allowed undue weight on articles, and they use sock accts, SPA's, trolling, and harass users who call them on their POV pushing. And then someone with a "trigger finger" on the block button comes along and decides to become judge and jury, without considering the fact that the only reason this website has any merit at all is because it has a few users who engage to stop the POV pushing of fringe views. Even Jimbo says ...if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too. [2] I think Tango is out of line here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made no judgement on MONGO's position. Simply on his way of expressing that position. He may well be right, but that doesn't give him permission to be uncivil. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleting comments on his talk page, warning or no is a long standing privilege of editors. Most uninvoilved admins would simply have dismissed it and lnoted the warning was read. By blocking however, you have shown that you are involved by your emotional response. --DHeyward (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree totally, and I think that's missing the point. The block was not for removing the warning notice, it was for the complete incivility in response to a civility notice. I hope this can be settled amicably, but I think the initial thought of blocking for this is sound. Redrocket (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If an offhand "get lost" is what you consider "complete incivility," you must have lived a sheltered life indeed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
So to be a wikipedia editor, you had to grow up on the rough streets? Redrocket (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that "get lost" is pretty mild as incivility goes. It is incivility, though. There is no requirement that the incivility be severe if it is repeated. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Tango, "get lost" is hardly even worth commenting on, far much worse things happen on this encyclopedia for you to pay attention to that. Have you even reviewed your own actions? You were what appeared to be engaging in communication with him about content (which makes you by default involved in the very least, You block him for a week, after the wrong block was undone you act like some kind of ultimate authority in placing him on 'indefinite civility parole' despite you now being involved to highest extent and you state 'request denied' to a chance to him being unblocked, even though u were originally a blocking administrator today. I would step back and realize that RFAr may be in your future if your conduct continues. — Κaiba 21:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You're behind the times - the RFAr's already been filed! I have no idea what you're talking about regarding content, and I'm pretty sure I've already responded to all your other points elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at your replies to all the other points, and I have to say, hardly any of them were satisfactory, IMHO. And I just now saw the RFAr page, hardly looks like making a case over, but nonetheless those who act abusively in some editors eyes also have bullseyes on them, so I don't expect it be long before all your actions come to light. — Κaiba 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if a retired user's talk page is the best place to argue about this. Perhaps at ANI, or one of your own talk pages would be better. (1 == 2)Until 22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Two comments:
  1. This entire fiasco is what the wikipedia-haters talk about when they try to discredit us.
  2. This is why our defacto rule that being an admin is no big deal should be revisited.

<begin soapbox rant>Wikipedia as a whole will be negatively affected by the loss of knowledge and experience that Mongo took when he retired. He has obviously had a very troubled past, but has made great strides. During his last RfA he exhibited great restraint and civility when other editors were throwing rotten fruit at him by the truckload. Unless I have missed some important point, I believe that the block for a hardly uncivil comment in an edit summary is a poor reason for a block. The continued mob mentality that follows concerns me a great deal. I think we should remember to assume good faith and continue making this a reliable encyclopedia and not to make this a social networking site for POV pushing intelects.</end soapbox rant>--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving this website for good..had enough

can an uninvolved admin post the following to the top of my userpage?


RETIRED


This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.


I will also add a statement that I would like to have added afterwards.--MONGO 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I seriously hope you reconsider. This is an unfortunate state of affairs. Orderinchaos 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
For now I will interpret this ins the usual way: an expression of acute frustration. In this case, entirely reasonable. MONGO, take a break, clear your head, come back refreshed. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This is completely unacceptable. Tango needs to appolagise to Mongo for this [3], and be de-sysoped, pending an enquiry into this lamentable affair. Giano (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You can always file an ArbCom case if you think that Giano. (1 == 2)Until 16:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it odd how you are always two steps behind me? Giano (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, we do not desysop people pending enquiries except in emergencies (someone going around deleting every featured article, say). The procedure is the have the enquiry, and then desysop the person if it is deemed appropriate. Secondly, making such calls here is unconstructive. If you want me to be desysopped, please file an ArbCom case against me. --Tango (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You are too heavy handed, in short you are incompetent. Giano (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to object to this block Giano. But please do so in a civil fashion. (1 == 2)Until 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh do stop trying to be intmidating, go write a page and do something useful. Giano (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Until, but I don't consider "incompetent" to be uncivil - if that's Giano's opinion, he's free to give it. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Your block was abusive and way out of line. I have never seen you once act civiliy towards me...ever. Your block was unjustified and spurious. Since you are the last straw as far as I am concerned, please follow the instructions I have posted under this posted. Otherwise, do not post to this page again....it is harassment at this point and if you can't see that, then you are a bigger problem than you seem to be.--MONGO 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
So, "get lost", is incivil, likely to emotionally scar sensitive person for life, yet being called "incompetent" which infers an inability to be able to perform a task correctly isn't.... interesting to know. Total overreaction, as seems to be the way these days. Minkythecat (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In summary, MONGO has been blocked for deleting a comment on his own user page, and has been blocked. A valuable editor has been prevented from contributing, due an edit that in no way disrupted the encyclopedia. This is not only heavy handed, it's downright disruptive on behalf of Tango's part. The only honorable thing to do would be for Tango to surrender his sysop privileges. But I have seen no remorse or shadow of doubt in his comments, so I'm skeptic. One of the sad stories in Wikipedia, when bureaucracy stomps common sense. Shame, shame, shame. --Qyd (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please post the retired tag to the top of my userpage...delete my image...I think it is on en.wiki so that should be easy enough. Please remove everything from my userpage and replace it with the retired tag and the following comments in italics...I am definitely done here.

I have left this website for good. I was once an administrator and was desysopped in a controversial decision that was strongly protested by numerous well respected editors. Since being desysopped, I have hung on, yet not having the tools has made me bitter and disgusted. The number of abusive admins is incredible and nothing is done to stop them....I was desysopped for less than many existing admins who misuse their tools and positions and get away with it. Some of these admins have shown me nothing but disrespect, have baited me and have used minor issues to sanction me. I will not continue to tolerate such abuse. Interesting, none of these admins seem to be here to write articles or make any serious contributions to our article space.

Conspiracy theorists have long misused this website to promote fringe views as facts, often demanding equal time with the known evidence. Most of these conspiracy theorists are single purpose accounts and therefore have the time to continuously argue and POV push nonsense into our article space. Meanwhile, editors like me who contribute over a wide spectrum of article spaces, do a lot of vandalism reverts and add many articles, including featured level content, do not have the same luxury. It should be easy to spot who is and who isn't here for the benefit of the website. Unfortunately, some editors are simply unable to understand or care about what really matters. The lack of understanding in this matter is taking this website in the wrong direction.

Both onsite and behind the scenes, I've done all I can to aide those that have had to deal with real life harassment. Recently, I even went so far as to privately aide someone I do not personally like. I didn't do this because I wanted to get on their good side...I did it because I do not tolerate harassment of our editors in real life. The response I got from this person was that they didn't trust me...I was really taken aback by this, and was shocked actually that my effort to help them, in spite of our differences, was so coldly received. This same editor has posted offsite regarding me...on a website that is known to have several of the same stalkers and miscreants that I have tried to defend others from. It's pretty obvious when someone should and someone shouldn't help others....I guess I should have just sat back in amusement and watched this editor get harassed...but I am not put together that way...I always defend anyone, regardless of my differences with them, when they are being harassed. Prior to my offer of aide, this same editor opposed my recent effort to get readminned...basing comments I made to them that were misunderstood overall. This same editor also periodically updated the tally on that Rfa...and I was not amused in the least. It troubles me when an editor watches over my Rfa like that and I am sure that this editor spoke with various friends to ensure where they stood as far as me getting the tools back. Sadly, this same editor has a lot of power and again, while I certainly do not condone the harassment they received, it makes me pretty sick to see this person have so much power over others.

The arbitration committee is lost. I have a lot of respect for most of them, but they are missing the point and not doing more to ensure this website is protected from those who wish to misuse it. The success of this website depends on strong decisions that are done for the good of the site. By this I mean that we need to ensure that single purpose accounts that are here to promote nonsense are dealt with swiftly and firmly. The reliability of this website is at stake..it won't ever be taken seriously so long as POV pushers and those with a wrongful agenda misuse our open editing policy. The committee needs to apply harder and more resolute sanctions on those that are here for all the wrong reasons.

There is no reason for me to continue editing this website. I am completely disgusted with admin abuse, the ongoing and endorsed stalking of some of our finest editors, the lack of determination to ensure we create a reliable reference base, the single purpose accounts that filibuster nonsense and face no sanction, the lack of direction and the poor example provided by our highest level people, the drama created by ridiculous and termagant demands for sanction on established editors...oftentimes used only by those with an axe to grind, the inability of this website to protect real experts from the nonsense pushers, the lack of cohesion, the infiltration of our top posts by those who contribute in offsite attacks, the sockpuppeting that goes unchecked...well, the list is rather endless...no reason to stay and add more content. Why bother and risk my own sanity dealing with so many problems. Maybe Wikipedia will fix itself...but the trend has been downward and I am not hopeful the problems can be solved.

There are many I will miss...though I have never once personally met any editor, I have a few friends I will continue to communicate with via email. I'll continue to offer support to them if they are being harassed, but only behind the scenes and as I have time. I want to wish my friends the best and hope they can find the strength to carry on in what I feel is a website that has become personally untenable.--MONGO 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Hut 8.5 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you...please block my account indefinitely and fully protect my userpage and talkpages if possible.--MONGO 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done the userpage, I doubt I'm allowed to block you or protect your talk page though. Hut 8.5 18:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope your retirement isn't permanent. With 1500 admins, it's amazing we don't have even more imprudent and vindictive ones. The only thing that keeps me here is this attitude. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't leave, MONGO! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why you are angry over this situation, but I very much hope you reconsider your decision to leave (though in the end, of course, it's entirely up to you). You are valuable to this project and I think the vast majority of editors here (including those like myself who have had significant disagreements with you in the past) are well aware of that. So I hope to see you remove that retired notice, but if you decide it's not worth your while then my sincere best wishes for you in all of your future endeavors, and a reminder that you have obviously done a lot of work here of which you can be very proud regardless of what happens.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow Mongo, never expected this. You've had a hard time here, but your work dealing with fringe views is invaluable. I hope you can look beyond this one block and see that you are very much appreciated here, and still have a lot to give. You have the respect of many people here and I hope after some reflection, you decide to stay. Best wishes, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, I had hoped to edit with you, you are a great asset to the project, do reconsider. MBisanz talk 00:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you reconsider. It is a pity to lose an experienced editor. Yeah, no one is perfect... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongo, I have worked with you a few times in the past, and I am very priveleged to have done so. I hope you reconsider retirement. Your knowledge and wisdom will be a loss for all. Viele Glück! Good luck! --Sallicio

--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I will up the ante... I will give you a nom for (re)Sysop to return. I really feel that the site is losing a valuable asset. I'm sure I can get a co-nom.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 01:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, please reconsider some time in the future. You're too good a person to lose. The RfAr isn't going to be accepted, Tango will stay on, but please, we need, and appreciate, you so much more. Please. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but his last RfA had over 150 for accept. (BTW, what has Tango staying on have to do with a successful RfA?)--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed with the others expressing remorse above. MONGO, don't leave! GlassCobra 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above: don't go. You do great article work here, especially in areas some people won't go near. Please stay. Acalamari 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree as well. You are a strong asset to this place and it would be most unfortunate to lose you over the poor judgment of a rogue admin. Eusebeus (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongo, please return, you are needed here. The project is of course a shame and disgust but it is still unique and indispensible. It would not make any good if it will be given to conspiracy theorists Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, please reconsider and stay. Not many who contribute here can claim as many Featured Articles and dedication. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Best of luck in your future endeavours MONGO. -- Naerii 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't leave, please! We've lost enough valuable editors as it is, and Wikipedia needs you. I am willing to personally nom or co-nom you for adminship as well. And the fact that I got edit-conflicted adding support says enough. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who edits in areas which are at times contentious and also not in the public eye, I recognise how important it is to have editors who are willing to deal with fringe additions from SPAs, sockpuppets etc. Mongo is one of the editors, most notably at the 11 September series of articles, helping to keep our encyclopaedic standards up so that those who perpetually slam this site for unreliability are deprived of at least one area of ammunition they can use against us. He is strong willed, but so are a lot of other long term good faith contributors. I think this whole fiasco should never have happened, that serious questions about the original blocking admin's judgement have been raised, and I hope Mongo sees past this and in future sees fit to return. Orderinchaos 03:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a sad day for all those fighting the fringe SPAs who are far more of a danger to the integrity of this project than any alleged incivility. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I'll echo Orderinchaos and others. See how you feel after a bit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I know many will read your essay and give it much thought. All the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about these recent events, and I hope that your post-Wikipedia ventures are as fruitful as of those on this project. You were a valuable asset to Wikipedia, although it was not often expressed. seicer | talk | contribs 05:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO what are you doing? Get back here! You were doing so fine and now this? Though I can understand why you are very upset right now please reconsider this. Taking a break is perhaps a good idea but please don't leave completely. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Seeing the bastards running wild on those articles really emphasizes how much you've done for the project. Wish you luck. John Nevard (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


This is fucked. Wikipedia without a Mongo is far less than Wikipedia with Mongo. Please reconsider. Edison (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Documenting the Chronology

The first warning was only for a comment in an edit summary on MONGO's own talk page (as was the block). He removed a comment on his own talk page with a comment "removing SPA trolling". The SPA is particularly sensitive to the term "trolling" and filed an ANI. It was for this User Talk Page edit summary that Tango issued his "official warning" as some stretch to the ArbCom ruling. This user talk page edit mentioning trolling generated this ANI whcih generated this warning. No edits on the article talk page were incivil and there were no edit warring.

Tango inserted himself into MONGO's talk page as an uninvolved admin: Three months ago he tried to single handedly derail MONGO's RfA because of the ArbCom ruling that deadminned mongo on the same topics that Tango claims uninvolvement in. This is prescient given Tango's present action. Trying to convince a neutral participant that MONGO hasn't changed is another indication of his involvement. Trying to convince another editor that MONGO needs more evidence to prove he has changed. Here he assigns the cause of all previous issues with the 9/11 article disputes to MONGO as he opposes his RfA . And here we have Tango making an incivil edit directed toward MONGO (much worse than saying "get lost". Notice the lack of a 1 week long block. And here MONGO warns Tango to be civil. Again without a block. Was this revenge? And here Tango actually says that calling someone a fool is not incivil and suggests that an admin stop warning people so much. Well, so much for uninvolved or consistent. One thing is clear though, Tango has had some very strong feeling about MONGO for a long time. In his own words, time is unable to heal his wounded ego. He should have taken his own advice here though. Lucky for him, MONGO wasn't irrational enough to block Tango for repeating his incivil comments.

The entire incident is about MONGO's talk page and is simply not about any ArbCom ruling. This is just an angry admin who lashed out because he didn't like being told to get lost. He is stretching the bounds to get this covered by ArbCom rulings. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Other editors have pointed out more abuses. FloNight (talk · contribs) points out that Here Tango extended a 3RR violation from one month to two months because the editor left a politely worded unblock request on Tango's talk page with an ip address. Reverts request for review. And extends the block when the user, who identified himself openly on his talk page, asked for review. How special. --DHeyward (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

An oldie but a goodie --DHeyward (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi MONGO, just letting you know that I've unblocked you. The level of concern about the block was such that I felt it was damaging to let it stand, and the most recent blocking admin, Orderinchaos, had no problem with it being reviewed. I hope you'll find a way to put it behind you and to continue editing. The project would be very much worse off without you, and I trust the comments to that effect on this page and elsewhere will give you some encouragement. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I only regret not having done it myself earlier. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
D'accord. Edison (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are needed

MONGO, I know you mean business by leaving. I also know you and I have nothing in common on this project, and I often disagree with how you go about things here. But I also have related: I never wanted to be admin b/c I always wanted to be able to speak my mind, skate on the edge of policy and guideline by being blunt, without anyone telling me I should set an example as an admin. So, I have never wanted to be an admin (unlike you). That said, you know that I know what it's like to be stalked. I also know how it feels to have that stalking make you feel alone and underappreciated (especially by the WMF). I also know that when you are blocked for freaking out, no matter how justified, no matter how much you have given to this project, feels like a slap in the face. Even though you and I are polar opposites, that is exactly why you can't leave: we need you. I wish you weren't so abrasive, but many people wish that about me. I was aghast at you during the THF/Unlink Michael Moore fiasco, but I also am impressed I have never seen you appall me since. You simply are me, but on the other end of the philosophical spectrum. That said, I disagree with you on many things, but I also am putting myself out there and saying: please, don't leave. We need you. I hope I can once again be appalled by you - I mean that. And as you know, and everyone knows I know, it sucks to be stalked and harassed. Dave --David Shankbone 10:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Look Mongo here [4] it's only Tango repeating his own disgraceful history - take paricular note of Mackensen's comments to him there. Just come back, all the serious editors are 100% with you on this. You are vindicated and have no need to feel anyhing more than justified anger. Return! Giano (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support Giano's sentiment here. If SlimVirgin had not already, I would have unblocked you myself. This site would be nothing without actual content producers. Cool Hand Luke 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm saying this, and I know you will think I'm looking to stir up trouble, but I think you are a needed, seriously needed, member of this community. My only problem with you has been your ability to be incivil and get away with it. I have never been able to find specific fault with your mastery of facts and ability to write for the project. I won't say I'm reversing my position on your blocks, because I'm not. You need to learn to get admins more regularly, and avoid the drama. Despite that, to dismiss you out of hand, as I've seen on the AN/I thread, is to oversimplify things. I'm not offering to be your friend, neither of us wants that, but I do have a modicum of respect for your body of work here, and would like to see it grow. Sincerely, and without drama, sarcasm, doublespeak, or any other dishonest tone: ThuranX (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongo, I'm very sorry to read up on what has happened here and I do hope that you will change your mind about retiring. I appreciate your work in the mainspace and the unwavering support and assistance you have given to many editors who have been victims of harassment and stalking. I hope you will have a break and then come back when you're ready. But in the meanwhile, I want to thank you for all your hard work; it has been greatly appreciated by many. Sarah 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me dissent from the clamor to get you to return. You should stay gone. Yes, you're a real asset to Wikipedia. So? How many thousands of hours of free labor have you put in? How much shit have you had to take? How much does the aggravation of this site roll over into your real life? Answer to all is, I expect, a gutful. So what if Wikipedia needs you; you don't need it. It will take a month or so to wean yourself off the addiction, but you'll be happier for it in real life. I know I was. Didn't always agree with you, but have always respected you. And folks here should respect that you've chosen to move on. Derex2 (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

Mongo, I don't know you but I took the time to dig back through your contribution all the way back in 2006. Needless to say, the opinion I formed is you are EXTREMELY valuable to this encyclopedia. Looks like you were blocked because an abusive admin felt you insulted his own sense of authority. It bothers me to see someone like Tango win in this case, I say "win" becasue he clearly has a personal vendetta against you, looks like he has harassed you for quite some time. Something must be done to stop abusive admins from abusing their tools, it is vital to the project. As long as we have admins like tango we will have serious problems. In my opinion he needs to be de-sysopped pending consensus of the community. The fact that he will not even apologize to you, and mantains his position while clearly in the wrong is what scares me the most. He has been making some very poor decisions. He certainly was not blocked for calling you a fool, and he actually argued calling someone a fool is not invil. If he is not an involved admin, I am the President of the United States. Please don't leave, Mongo, you are needed here and you have a lot of people on your side. I am still a very new editor but I will support you any way possible. If you decide to come back (and I'm praying to God you will) be sure and let me know of any future RFA's; as I would consider it an honor to give you strong support. I know I'm repeating myself here, but PLEASE DON"T LEAVE. We can't let admins get away with this type of thing. Landon1980 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you stay. If not, I'll need a lot of mentoring to try and help fill the void you left behind! Enigma message Review 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC

FYI, I have filed an RFC against Tango at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tango. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of Owl is this?

A Screech-owl, but which species?
A Screech-owl, but which species?

I recall that you uploaded an excellent Burrowing Owl picture in the past and I found this image of a Screech-owl for you yesterday. When I saw the pictures in the Navy image gallery, I immediately thought of that image and I decided to upload them to commons. The owl was found on the flight deck of USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) in the wheel well of an F/A-18 Hornet and aptly named "FOD". It is stated to be a screech owl, but there are a few dozen species listed on that page. I was wondering if you could point out which species it belongs in and possibly place it on the appropriate page if it is needed there. Other images include Image:ABH3 Dieringer holds a screech owl named Fod.jpg, which is the uncropped original image and Image:Screech Owl named Fod found on USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75).jpg, which is a different view. Harry S. Truman is based in Norfolk, but the owl was found on the ship while sailing in the Persian Gulf. I suppose it is possible that it had been hiding in the hanger for a few months until it was found in the F/A-18. Thank you for the many valuable contributions you've made to wikipedia over the years, including the 9/11 related pages. I hope that you can look beyond the current situation and find a way to continue to contribute to the project. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So do I, because, inspite of my 100s of friends and supporters, I'm feeling a little beleaguered and lonely here. If I can hang on in here, can't you at least keep me company? Giano (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom regarding Tango now names you as a party

A request for arbitration regarding Tango had been filed earlier at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tango. Recently, your name has been added as a party to this request. Please make any comments you believe appropriate regarding the matter. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango evidence

Remember were supposed to keep the evidence under 1000 words. I didn't count, but at 5775 bytes regarding Tango it's possible you exceeded that. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, user needing to make several separate cases, I suggest we can choose to respect user's experience and discretion in making those cases without undue concern. BusterD (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If anyone should be granted extra words it should be the one blocked. And if the evidence should be in the form of in-depth explication of what could have been discovered by cursory investigation by the blocking admin, I can hardly find the fault in that. Shenme (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Retirement

Perhaps you thought nobody would notice that you had retired, but here I am to urge you to return. Every good editor helps. The vandals will not win! Useight (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not the vandals that are the problem, but neither will the problems resolve themselves of themselves as long as wikipedia is popular. I am not willing to let the trolls distort our coverage of child sexual abuse and I hope you and Brad are not willing to let the trolls take hold of the 9/11 articles, albeit using alterante accounts. Thanks, SqueakBox

Bummer, but I can't say I blame you. Stay well, Tom Harrison Talk 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem

I just happened on it...happy to help, not happy you can't do it yourself. RxS (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That won't ever change I don't believe and if it did, I would have to be perfect to avoid constant complaints...and no one is perfect. I think admins, even those that have some "enemies" do best if they don't act in an abusive or in a retalitory manner. Deleted pages can be restored, blocks can be undone...but abuse of power and the lack of willingness to accept that one is possibly mistaken is chilling for those on the receiving end. Now that I have been just an editor as well as an admin, I can see what if feels like to be powerless. I think that allows me greater empathy for those that have been blocked or badgered.--MONGO 16:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that Tango (talk · contribs) has made a number of problematic blocks. It also states that Tango's administrative privileges are to be revoked, and may be reinstated at any time either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy to see you got through that one! --BenBurch (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
From my perspective...all he needed to do was apologize and I would have stayed out of it...but it has definitely been a chilling effect on my editing, regardless of some who say I have "returned"...hardly the case since I have added zero content since before the case started. I'm still mulling over whether I have any interest remaining for some of the antics that seem to be the norm here now.--MONGO 14:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you want any help policing the 911 articles, please just ask. Also, we would love to have you over at JREF. --BenBurch (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
JREF...whats that...also, been kind of backing off from 9/11 lately. I might return there at some point but things seem much calmer there these days since so many CTers have been topic banned.--MONGO 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
JREF - http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php - A community of skeptics that is positively loathed by truthers. I'm proud to be a member. --BenBurch (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and check it out but my time is very limited these days...I'll find some time later this week perhaps.--MONGO 03:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rootology

Hi Mongo, Thank you for being reasonable about the unblock of Rootology. Rootology is unblocked with the conditions we discussed with you and a notice was placed on his talk page and AN. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 12:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it should be renamed Wikipedia Review vs. Slim, FM etc...cause that is exactly what it looks like.--MONGO 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sawtooth National Forest acreage

Where did you get your figure of 2.1 million acres? I was only able to come up with an "official" source figure of 1,804,090 acres from this official Forest Service webpage. Backspace (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is probably more accurate...not sure where the 2.1 million came from, but that was added in 2005 when I first stubbed the article and I can't remember the source. It is probably from the USDA FS website which is linked but the website has changed since. According to the history page, the forest was created in 1905 and consisted of 1,947,520 acres then.[5] Likely as has happened in many NF's, the acreage bordering roads has been sold off to private parties in 5 to 10 acre parcels over the years. However, this federal website claims the park has 2.1 million acres [6]...so maybe I need to call them and ask them if there is a reference that I can cite that will give me exactly what the acres are...my guess is that your link at top is the accurate one...and we can go with that.--MONGO 03:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Format notes

Unblocking without consensus or discussing with the original blocking administrator beforehand


Page protections as an involved editor


Editing on behalf of banned editors


Incivility


Aiding and abetting trolling of established editors

Viridiae / Cla's RfA

The aggressive tone of [7] notwithstanding, isn't there some truth to what he's saying? I'm aware that you're using the diff to illustrate Viridiae's behaviour rather than discussing the content of that posting (also, our opinions may diverge on Cla68 in general and his RfA in particular); but the content does imo weigh at least as much as the form. An uncivil tone is really bad when combined with wild accusations / attacks, but less so (at least imho) when the statement is one of an opinion about facts and even less when there is at least some truth in what is being said (compare some of JzG's comments/edit summaries, which are both arguably true statements and uncivil: I don't have a problem with those at all). I guess what I'm trying to say is that AC members will most probably evaluate evidence according to those two distinct parameters, and this diff may be less than ideal to get your point across. The other diffs you're presenting are far more suited to illustrate suboptimal behaviour by Viridiae since they contain no or nearly no statement about facts, only Viridiae's personal opinions about other users (which makes his tone in those diffs indeed far more worrisome). dorftrottel (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing is that this is but a small sampling of his tone. He surely could have used a different response in that example you remind me of. That said, my response to his comment was, hopefully, a rational recreation for what really happened at Cla68's Rfa as far as why Slim asked Cla68 the questions she did and why others felt unimpressed enough by his responses to not only oppose his Rfa but for some to even strike through their support. The entire concept that Slim set out to railroad this man or that she conspired on or offsite to get others to take her side on the issue is ridiculous. Cla68 deserves huge credits for his FA work...but great writing does not justify the kinds of things presented by Felonious Monk regarding him.--MONGO 07:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was one of those who struck their support at the time, which I have come to regret. As far as SlimVirgin's actions there are concerned, our opinions do indeed diverge (which I hope is no biggie). Btw, imo this monstrosity of an RfAr is getting somewhat out of hand, mostly for the fact that it lumps together so many different issues, some of which are only tangentially related to each other (the aforementioned Viridiae diff being a prime example for why people should be careful not to aggressively 'take sides'). Best, dorftrottel (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone is responsible for their own actions...the diffs are there and if they demonstrate abuse or exonerate someone then they should be presented.--MONGO 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. dorftrottel (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)