User talk:MONGO/Archive25

Cowstar
Thanks for that, first decent chuckle I've had out of Wikipedia all week. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure.--MONGO 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny to see a bot warn you for not signing the adminship question :-) Nyttend 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
 Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! -- Hdt 83     Chat 05:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Henrik's RfA thanks!
Thanks for supporting my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. henrik •talk  19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.
I've seen you around, and I think you're definitely a "takes a lickin', keeps on tickin'" type. I appreciate your support a lot in light of the weirdness.

RE: "troll elsewhere"
I guess our help is not needed! This place is not getting less strange... El_C 09:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been numerous accusations, so perhaps she felt it is better to ignore that dribble and not feed it by "covering it up" with a revert. I hadn't noticed at first when I removed it that she had previously restored it.--MONGO 15:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of conspiracy theory info
Hello. I was wondering if you could mosey on by Oklahoma City bombing and offer some of your thoughts on Talk:Oklahoma City bombing. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting situation on my talk page
Hi there, could you take a look at this? This - User_talk:TimVickers in reply to a civility warning for this edit summary. Do you think I should just let this go as resolved, or is this guy's attitude too much of a problem? Tim Vickers 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, dealt with. I only have so much patience with people like that. Tim Vickers 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA
 Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Neranei 2
Hello, are you aware you voted twice? Was it a mistake or something? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops.--MONGO 08:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)

 * A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA edits
Can I ask why you arbitrarily post the same question on all the RFAs? It seems a lot like badgering esp what happened with the whole Jimbo/Zscount370 incident. Just curious. -- 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why I post those questions..there is nothing badgering about asking people if they understand the policy...it also helps me determine the potential they have for wheel warring.--MONGO 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some thankyou spam
Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Requests for adminship/Ioeth question
Thanks for the question! I just wanted to let you know that I responded to it. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

its your fault, dude
I'm going to admit this now, least it comes back to haunt me at arb. Ceoil 08:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh?--MONGO 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dearest MONGO, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your consideration and support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow  and  Phoenix-wiki  for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.  Lara  ❤  Love  19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by  The Random Editor 's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel 's RFA thanks.

Belated thanks.
Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 13:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

my RFA
  If you voted in my RFA... ...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations. Thank you again and, best regards. Van Tucky  Talk <font color="#002FA7"> This RFA thanks was inspired by <font color="BA55D3">Lara <font color="00CED1">❤ <font color="FF1493">Love's 

More RfA shout outs
Hey Mongo, thank you so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 23:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam
<div style="padding: 5px; background:#FFCC99; border-style: solid; border-width: 2px; border-color:#FF7F50; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; "> <div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 400px; float: center;"> <font color="#000000">Thank you... <font color="#000000">...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me. <font color="#000000">Thank you again and, best regards, Neranei <font color="#000000"> This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Sorry
Your note on my talk page has merit, and I'm sorry for any upset those posts caused. I edited them yesterday, but having been encouraged by an editor I respect to reflect, I feel a further apology is necessary. It should be extended to all parties, who I hope will be aware of it here, without dragging it back out onto any more pages.

Sorry. Privatemusings 00:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a hello
Well, hey there, Mongo; but how does that song go? "The Wild Women of Wongo"? Do you play the bongo? Catch up with you sometime. PS- Cool user page. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not heard that one.--MONGO 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
MONGO, I have a proposal, regarding the harassment links. If you see anybody adding a link to any "attack site", tell me about it, and I will personally remove the link, and block the person if they restore it. I will do it without appealing to any kind of misguided "BADSITES" policy, and I will demonstrate that our current policies are perfectly adequate to dealing with harassment, when they're applied with professionalism.

What do you thihk? The worst I can do is fail to live up to my word, and then we'll be right back where we are now. On the other hand, you might find out how effective we can be when we handle these situations right, and not wrong. Why not give it a try? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you guys are so opposed to having that in policy? This isn't about badsites...it is about websites that make it a habit of attack our contributors...we all know what these websites are and I know who are the participants in those sites....so it certainly is a disgusting COI when partiticipants in those websites try and argue against not being able to link to them...I think arbcom would agree with that.--MONGO 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a reason, and I've told it to you dozens of times. I oppose advertising the existence of these sites. I oppose BEANS. I oppose the policy that you're trying to shoehorn into WP:NPA because I think it's misguided, and every time I've told you this, you've responded with the equivalent of "LA, LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" When will you stop mischaracterizing my arguments? When? I have NEVER, no will I EVER, argue against not being able to link to attack sites. NEVER, get it? Now, is there a reason that you think other policies are not adequate to handling the situation? Is there a reason you didn't respond to my proposal? Is there a reason you ignore most of what I say? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In which case its disgusting COI for you to try and argue for its inclusion when you claim to have been harrased by members of those websites. It goes both ways MONGO. All in all this latest edit war and the resulting talk page participation (which should have happened before you added something you knew did not have consensus) has simply reaffirmed that there is no consensus to include that section in that policy. It also reaffirmed that you cannot participate in discussions about that subject without continually attacking other editors. Viridae Talk 04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's getting hard to tell the pots from the kettles here. - Crockspot 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Crockspot can you please restrict yourself to helpful comments. I would like to see which part of that was a personal attack? Calling someone out on attacking other people is not a personal attack when it can be substantiated (and already has been by someone else who has warned mongo about it already). Viridae Talk 04:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I was referring more to the COI aspect. Being the victim of a nine-page bash fest on a site that you frequent makes me feel oh so warm and fuzzy. - Crockspot 04:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You just did, above. Anyway...point is...you are a contributor to WR, correct? Yet you argue against baning linking to that website...correct? Yet you think that I also have a COI because I argue against linking to the kind of harassment that I had to endure? I fight to protect our contributors and you are fighting for the right to be able to lin to harassment...please correct me if I am mistaken.--MONGO 04:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I contribute to WR. I do not support attacks and I am not disagreeing with your insertion on the basis that I want to link to WR (no matter how many times you claim that about dan, and I it won't change it) I disagree with that section because it has been used to 1. suppress valid criticism 2. remove perfectly valid links. It may also be used to justify blocking a contributor who is not making an attack but is simply linking to a site regarded as an attack site for another reason. I do not agree that I have a COI, because I am not fighting to link to WR, I dislike this policy addition for a different reason. However, if you are going to dismiss my opinions on the basis that you think I have a COI when I do not, you had better stop editing the subject yourself, because although you assert without proof that I have a COI, there is proof of yours. Viridae Talk 04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OH...hahahahaha! I don't participant in a website that is a capricious pile of shit like WR...you do! Yet you oppose banning links to it...okay...well, shucks golly gee...surely that's not a COI...surely.--MONGO 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (after three edit conflicts and a database lock) Hang on, first let's calm down and remember that we're all on the same side here, trying to do what is best for Wikipedia. Second, let's not generalize COI to the point where it has no meaning. Almost every Wikipedia admin had been attacked by at least one of the sites in question, WP:COI is about editing article space. Now, to address Mongo's question about why people don't want the text in NPA,  the concern by those who don't want it in is that there may be circumstances where a link to something like Wikipedia Review might be ok or useful. And no one  wants a repeat of something like the Making Lights fiasco. Since current policies are enough to deal with the cases when the links are being added to harass people, people are worried that the only thing gained by adding the section is a backdoor to more BADSITES type approaches. JoshuaZ 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um...well, I disagree with that. Since WR is full of shit...yes, full of shit...then we shovel that shit out the door. IF a link was ever needed, then it could be emailed to arbcom...simple.--MONGO 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You disagree with which part? Note that there were a number of points above (I assume that you didn't disagree with for example my assertion that we're all on the same side). Now, assuming from your comment that you are referring solely to the comment about Wikipedia Review, I agree that the set of circumstances where a link would be useful is narrow. But they can occur, and the ArbCom deals with arbitration cases, it is not the ArbCom's job to look at every single link and then decide how and whether to disseminate it in a discussion. And if you want examples of where it might be legitimate to link to WR I can easily supply them- say for example, a thread there discusses a plan to disrupt Wikipedia, or someone wishes to point out that a closing admin made a comment on WR that indicated they had strong bias in the outcome of a deletion discussion (something like this did actually happen before, I don't unfortunately remember all the details. And WR isn't the only site, would for example Making Lights be unacceptable with this? What about Rob Balder's blog where he said nasty stuff about us? You see, it is hard to see where this stops. And of course, none of this deals with the other point, that the genuine harassment can be dealt with anyways. JoshuaZ 04:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also the BEANS argument, as the current (protected) text of NPA is an advertisement for attack sites. If that provision stays in policy, it will be a small victory for the trolls, and it will set a terrible precedent for other mistakes like it. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In your haste to assume bad faith..I expect any of you to show me where I mentioned a "website" in my new wordng about external links.....look at my contribution to the NPA policy again...

''Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is not to be tolerated. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate criticism. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for banning.''

--MONGO 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so are you saying that under this proposal it wouldn't apply to websites as a whole but only the specific pages that have the problematic material? JoshuaZ 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup....--MONGO 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we are getting somewhere. At some level this is a good sign, but at another level, it leaves me even more confused. Since we can remove links that are clear attempts to harass and insult anyways, what does this add? It maybe had some policy result when it made the website as a whole forbidden, but if it is just the page itself, what is this adding beyond what we would already do? JoshuaZ 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For one thing, it adds an exclusion for legitimate criticism, which is not covered earlier in the policy. - Crockspot 04:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Um again, but we wouldn't have removed the links if they legitimate criticism earlier. If this merely means that we remove links that are placed as an attempt to harass then we do that anyways. If it means something more, then what other links are going to get removed? JoshuaZ 04:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't we have? Without some sort of qualification that legitimate criticism is acceptable, any criticism off wiki could be construed as an attack, and removable, by the letter of the policy. - Crockspot 05:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there something in current policy that makes you think that we would remove links to criticism we thought was legitimate? JoshuaZ 05:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * JoshuaZ, I'm not sure MONGO's looking to remove any links that we wouldn't already remove. I don't think that's what this is about for him. I think this dispute has come to represent, for some people, whether or not Wikipedia is willing to make a statement of solidarity and support for people who have been harassed by certain individuals on certain websites. For others, I suspect it's a quixotic exercise in trying to lawyer against the inevitable. MONGO, you're right that I assumed you were advocating a site-ban. I apologize for my assumption of bad judgment; I've always been pretty certain of your good faith. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lawyer against the inevitable? Viridae Talk 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I may be wrong about that, and I'm not suspecting any particular individual. I hope I'm wrong. However, if anybody in the discussion thinks that the exclusion of the paragraph in question creates a loophole for them to engage in anything shady, then they're mistaken, that's all. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that none of those people who are supporting its removal are doing so because they want to use links to attack people (something they wouldnt get away with anyway). Viridae Talk 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are those who would disagree with you, perhaps on both of those points. Doesn't the truth usually lie somewhere in between? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry to point this out, MONGO, but it was pretty clear that someone who fervently agreed with this addition, Crum375, thought it would ban links to "attack sites." You are usually a good enough writer that such a misunderstanding would be extremely unlikely. If someone has to read a policy section several times over to understand it, then it needs to be rewritten. How about adding "Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor" to the list of things that are never acceptable? Oh wait.... Risker 05:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, Crum375 and I agree that we need never link to such sites...however, my wording was a compromise solution...perhaps it can be reworded better, maybe to make it less threatening, but again, I think it is important, especially as time goes by, that when someone later on, a newbie perhaps, comes along and inserts a link to a page that is harassing our contributors, that we can have this small detail emphasized so that we can point to it and tell them..."no...that is against our policies...for more information, see the policy here"--MONGO 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "sites" and "pages" are not interchangeable terms. Question: If http://www.example.org/?thread=1234 contains legitimate criticism (and, to keep it simple, suppose it is not disputed that the content of that specific page is legitimate criticism) and http://www.example.org/?thread=4321 contains harassment, is it permissible to link http://www.example.org/?thread=1234 ? That is the key difference between "sites" and "pages", yet you appear to be using the two terms interchangeably in your comments. ?thread=1234 is a page that is legitimate criticism, but it is on a site that contains harassment. Could you clarify what you mean? —Random832 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No links to harassment--MONGO (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading through this thread, I am thinking - "OK, what is so hard to understand here?" Seriously, protecting our editors is first priority, and needs to be the main focus. Is Wikipedia so desperate for information that we need questionable links?? I haven't followed the whole story behind this other than what I have spotted on some pages, so forgive me if I seem somewhat ignorant on this (my schedule in real life is tough enough). You can always go back and revert something back in from the edit history on Wikipedia. However, you cannot go back and retrieve a good editor who left the project forever because of unabated harassment. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  04:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are the editors our first priority, or is the encyclopedia our first priority? The answer can't change depending on the context, and in other cases, it seems to be pretty clear that people think it's the encyclopedia. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Without good editors, you don't have an encyclopedia. Yep - That's it. It's all about who is building and maintaining it. Without good editors, it will fall apart. It will become a soapbox, a place of original research, etc. In other words, unworthy of the title "encyclopedia". JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  04:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Spebi's RfA question
I have responded to your question on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spebi – hope I have satisfied you in my answer :) Spebi  04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Howdy MONGO, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards -- Herby talk thyme 11:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO/NPA RfAR
A request for arbitration involving you has been filed. Viridae Talk 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Well...if the arbitration committee accepts it, then I'll have to participate. Otherwise, I see my efforts to continue to try and work out a reasonable solution on the NPA policy as well as efforts I commenced today to begin writing at least some short stubs on the glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.) will be sidetracked...that is truly unfortunate.--MONGO (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I reasonable solution at NPA would have occured a HELL of a lot sooner had you not attacked everyone you disagreed with. Now I have noticed your change in demeanour, and I hope this lasts, but as evinced by at least two arbcom cases you have been involved in, you have a problem with civility. This has been going for years, I do not see a resolution without arbcom intervention. Viridae Talk 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way.--MONGO (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, so am I. Viridae Talk 08:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can still withdraw the request. I haven't decided who else to add yet, but I believe in full transparency as much as possible, so any names I add will be done publically and I'll notify them. I won't post anything unless arbcom accepts the case....I really do have other things I want to be doing.--MONGO (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would withdraw the request straight away, if i had felt this new calmer MONGO was goi ng to be a permanent change. But this has happened so many times, I cannot have confidence that that will be the case. Viridae Talk 08:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
That parenthesis isn't extra, there should be two in a row. is correct. Picaroon (t) 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that...just looked off...I might not be allowed to edit that page anyway since I am not an arbcom clerk...was just looking over other cases and saw that.--MONGO (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA (Random832)
Thank you, MONGO, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open.—Random832 14:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2
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, Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 17:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Involving me in the RFARB
Hi MONGO, I've in fact been considering getting involved but still haven't heard back from Viridae. I'm curious as to why you want to involve me?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hum...well, even though you stated here that bygones be bygones...and in response to that I exceed your request to alter my subpage and went so far as to have it deleted...seeing that bygones are not going to be bygones, and instead you show up at this latest case and have something to say...I am going to make sure you have the platform you need.--MONGO (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see how you might interpret this as an old grudge. My intention was mainly to encourage ArbCom to accept the request and put an end to debates about your behaviour. As I see it, ArbCom may send a clear signal in support of your way of doing things (as previous RfCs have) or it may make it clear that fighting vandalism (and the like) does not mean suspending WP:CIVIL. I do hope we get a chance to find out.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I find you, as a single purpose account to be problematic. I have no doubt that your intention is not as you say it is...you'll have a very hard time working around the evidence I am planning on presenting...however, I have no doubt that I will be penalized for incivility. I had actully hoped they would accept the case you previously filed, for there I think you would have been banned from editing 9/11 related articles.--MONGO (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Our aims in this case are complementary then. If this case can be used also to test your objections to me as an SPA, all the better. I doubt I'll try to wiggle out of anything. If ArbCom looks at my history here and tells me that my kind is not wanted, that's fine. No hard feelings. I of course also hope you will take any censure of your incivility to heart.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thomas, I am going "all in" at arbcom...I have accomplished most what I have wanted to accomplish when I came here. I expect that after I finish presenting my evidence, I will quickly write 65 or so stubs on various glaciers so I can claim 400 article starts...each article will have as much infomation as I can cite, but in many cases, all I have is a quad map for a reference since these things aren't as well covered individually as I would like. Then, if I am not banned outright, I intend to abandon this account anyway. If I am banned, I will leave this website forever and not look back, knowing that I started 400 articles and brought some of them to featured level. So, see you at arbcom. But rest assured, I doubt that my departure will make things any easier for anyone trying to promote conspiracy theories on 9/11...someone else will surely fill my shoes, maybe even be more patient and civil as well.--MONGO (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think you need to start 65 stubs to be proud of your work on glaciers and such (ask anyone). Your departure may make it easier to deal with the promotion of conspiracy theories at WP. All I've ever asked is that you fill those shoes more patiently and civily or, if you can't do that, to let others try. It looks like we're both trying to find out how much we can identify with the WP community.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha...I already know I am not your prototypical Wikipedian. We have some really excellent editors that do much better than me..but here's the thing...I have only filed one case against anyone in my 37,000 plus edits and almost 3 years on this website...there has been plenty of opportunities to do so, but I don't like doing it. Seems, I'm too busy defending myself from someone else...why...well, I take bait real easy and tend to lash out at those who call me a "liar" as has been recently done (though, all I did in response is ask him to not do that...odd that my restraint is so often overlooked)...furthermore, I have a tendency to edit difficult pages...I have run into some partisans of websites that are trying to do all they can to ensure we ban only links to harassment, not the websites themselves (although, arguably, these extremely few websites do little more than harass anyway)...well, I've managed to accumulate a few enemies as a result of my relatively hard charging, take no crap attitude...so the meat is in the pudding...surely, I confess to not always being civil..but I know the evidence is alarming that what I have been dealing with is no better, and in fact, sometimes worse than anything I have ever said or done...I am afterall, a man of a particular kind of science, at best...I suppose.--MONGO (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Let's see how it goes. I'd say you have made more enemies than you needed to and that your battles with them are more trouble than they're worth. I don't count myself among them and I don't look for "opportunities" to file cases. You've made editing difficult for me and I've tried to find out if you are justified in doing so. BTW, my favourite poet writes: "Be the trouble not the balance." I somehow respect you for living up to that ideal. I just don't think WP is the place for it. It is (officially) trying to be the opposite.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh comeon, Thomas...I apologized to you on the rfc you filed..but you felt it wasn't sincere enough...most disagreed with you..then, unsatisfied, you took your case to arbcom anyway, where it was flatly rejected...they did you a favor there I believe. It is you and has been, and still is, others, who keep trying to stir the pot...not ME. I tried to avoid you actually, and ceased editing articles such as 9/11 conspiracy theories and the controlled demolition hypothesis article...I ceased editing there to avoid YOU...so please cease patronizing me that I am the one who is looking for trouble...you act like I have driven you away from things...I assure you, it is the other way around. I just figured that if the 9/11 CTer's needed a playground for the hypothetical (as bad as it might make Wikipedia look)...then fine...so long as they didn't come mess up articles that discuss the facts about that event.--MONGO (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I think we agree that arbitration is necessary. See you there.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes...we surely do...I think you'll finally get your chance to try and settle old scores. Wikipedia is not a playground to promote fringe theories...nor it is a place to misuse the dispute resolution process to try and gain an advantage in content dispute.--MONGO (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A favorite movie quote
''"Today I settled all Family business, so don't tell me you're innocent, Carlo." - Michael Corleone'' Crockspot (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"They drew First Blood...not me!" Sylvester Stallone...aka "Rambo"...First Blood.--MONGO (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mail
Email. Nothing important. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 18:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ping
I've sent you an email. Picaroon (t) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA - thanks
{| style="background-color: skyblue; border: 2px solid black;"
 * [[Image:Géode V 3 1 duale.gif|100px|]]
 * Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~ Eliz 81 <sup style="color:#1E90FF;">(C)  02:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
<div style="padding: 5px; background: light blue; border-style: solid; border-width: 7px; border-color: navy; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; "> <div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 250px; float: center;"> <I>Thank you for your participation in my RfA</I> Click show to open your card! → → → <font size=3 font color="black"> Dear , Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which closed successfully with 22 supports, 1 oppose, and 2 neutrals. Whether you supported, opposed, stayed neutral or simply commented or asked a question, I would like to thank you for your time and for your comments. Special thanks must go to User:Lar and User:John, who not only conommed, but also devoted a large proportion of their time coaching me. I am sure that what I have learnt during the coaching process can be put to good use as an admin. As an admin, I will be willing to help out with anything I can so please do not hesitate to contact me if there is anything I could help out with. I will also do my best to address any concerns raised during the RfA.

Thanks. Tbo 157  (talk)  16:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

<I>Credits</I> <I>This RFA thanks was inspired by User:Iridescent's and User:The Random Editor's RFA thanks which were both inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks .</I>

Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman
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, Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Cbrown1023   talk   18:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Goethean/Examples
You and a few others are listed at User:Goethean/Examples and User:Goethean/Examples2. If you want me to address this, please let me know. -- Jreferee    t / c  17:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Geez..I had forgotten about that guy...nah, I'm not concerned about that sort of thing, but not sure what purpose it serves...thanks though.--MONGO (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted
--MONGO (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the support. --rogerd (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano
Perhaps it's for the best. If these are the kind of folks that are running things at WP, perhaps losing most of the FA crew and seeing just how detrimental their vindictive ban is to the project would shake them up enough to get them looking at the issues that TRULY damage the project. Mr Which??? 03:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please wait
What's it about? I was asked to cite and reference a passage which Guy pulled out from another section of Wikipedia space. Read the above discussion about the deletion of the passage. They wanted it cited - I'm citing. Theres been about 10 people talking about it. Dispute resolution? If you want DR, you are welcome to do it. I dont really have the time (or interest) for that. I'm trying to satisfy people's request for info. Period.85.5.180.9 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in the wrong place...write the Foundation or arbcom directly.--MONGO 07:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
I am a bit confused by this edit. It was discussed briefly on IRC. I am not certain how being from Brunei Darussalam matters at all as entire countries are not banned from certain topics. That aside, you seem to have deliberately or mistakenly removed a few entire sourced sections... I could care less on the topic itself and merely want to know what is going on as a fellow wikipedian. -- Cat chi? 07:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's called POV pushing...I was reverting it...it was like last July...my hair has been cut 6 times since.--MONGO (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice haircut. -- Cat chi? 12:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't do IRC...but whenever someone wants ot talk crap about others..that is a good place to do it....do yourself a favor and avoid such childishness...I wonder if there is much discussion about all the great work many people do, or is it just that they want to microinspect every little fluffy one might have made. Seem pretty petty.--MONGO (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Had I not thought you were a great user to the community, I would not be even talking to you. You are being overly defensive and there is no need for this. This isn't an accusation, merely a discussion. I am not trying to give you a hard time at all. Had a new user or a problematic user made such a remark, I'd not worry too much about it. I'd probably drop a template warning and later post it to WP:ANB/I. You are not a problematic user and instead you are an exemplary one which is why I was surprised.
 * The IRC discussion was less about the material you removed and more about the edit summary. I was wondering the rationale behind it.
 * -- Cat chi? 12:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps reread the first comment I made in response to your query. I don't edit articles that are full of negativisms about other countries and when I see someone misuse Wikipedia space to post highly POV rhetoric about my nation, I don't like it. I think it is rude, so my response is to make it clear that it is very much unappreciated. I'm not going to rehash an incident that was made six months ago, anymore than edit summaries I made almost 3 years ago. I find it amusing that some are soooooooo bored that they spend their life on IRC chit-chatting about some snafu an editor made 5+ thousand edits ago.--MONGO 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit my user page
Re: The deletion of a couple of links on my user page.

Your behavior surprises me. Looking over the thousands of edits which you have done in the past year, and all of the pages you have made amassing evidence against other wikiusers, not to mention the support of Morton's "friendly folks section" and friends page. I have to say: "beam in your eye". Since you can't AfD my own user page, as others have attempted to AfD your large evidence pages. I see no policy which would support the deletion of a couple of links. Sigh, next thing I know you will start calling me a troll, as you have when you "vandalize" other wikipedian's pages. [ANI words, not mine]
 * ...all the pages...you mean the ONE page that was sent to arbcom about SevenOfDiamonds, who arbcom subsequently blocked for being a ban evader?.
 * ''...no policy, but a guideline...see

I'm confused: When other people watch your edits and mess with your user page it is called trolling and stalking, but when you do it, what is it called?

Well mission accomplished. You got my attention, you flicked that piece of wood right off my shoulder. Now what Mongo? Are you nostalgic for more wikidrama? Avoiding an Arbcom where you surely would have been sanctioned (Arbcom words, not mine) emboldened you? Can't find any new "friends" lately so you decided to stir up contention with old "friends"? [Morton's words, not mine] Now that we are on the subject of Morton, was there ever a check user on you and Morton? I think there was, he made fun of all the check users with his socks page. I have always wondered who Morton's sock was. I probably never will know. Probably the joke is on everyone--including me. He probably never was a sock. BTW, how did you calculate the edit rate of Nuclear and SevenofDiamonds. You should be a private detective. That was your best Arbcom evidence to get someone kicked off of wikipedia yet from you. I mean, how can anyone argue over a graph? Next Arbcom I am going to make a graph too. I asked around and no one could really answer me what technology you used. You didn't actually go through hundreds of edits to make that graph did you. I know, based on your edit history on your user page, you will probably delete this message. Thats okay, its only for you anyway.
 * 'No, but you seem to be...whenever there is a chance to try and spin something about me, there is Travb, adding his disparagements...ah, but of course, you didn't come kicking and screaming to arbcom when notorious abusive troll Rootology was being banned now did you...nah...
 * Interestingly...I wanted that arbcom case and claerly stated as such several times...and please do show me where arbcom stated that I would have been sanctioned...I remember they staing that I am problematic...
 * Gee...ya think? Yes, please do continue to disparage others as you pass by, it is amusing to read.
 * 'I dunno...there is the possibility that the arbcom members looked over other things besides that graph...just a thought.

I have been really carefully, rewriting all the "fucks" etc., so that you can't get Tom or someone else on your "Greatest editor ever" list page to boot me. I have to say, the mass "support" votes in admin elections is a stroke of genius. If I was more Machiavellian [and not to say you are (really)], I would do this too. I don't know if you ever read my list of how to become an admin on my user page, funny stuff. If I wanted to, I could open up another account and become an admin in two months, max. But alas, I would lose the entertainment I get from the wikidrama, like when Mongo removes their name from my user page. "Oh the places we will go" -- Dr Seuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd...my more recent (gee, no one is tracking my edits afterall, it seems, eh) mass supports at Rfa were all for candidates that were promoted with little or no opposition by others either...gee...my sock army is doing well I guess, Travb.
 * Not read it...just saw that you misuse your userpage.
 * Yes...go forth Travb and write some articles...that is, afterall why we are here. But you can always use an IP and another username to do some more page move edit warring. That worked out well for you until we saw what you were up to...--MONGO 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

9/11
Hey, you reverted my citation here saying you were removing POV- was this a mistake? I've put the citation back in place in the meantime because fact tags are ugly as hell.-Wafulz (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll make a presumption here that MONGO does not think that AIM is a reliable source. I'll also note that the fact tag was placed after the word "all", and I believe that is what he wants a source for. Just because you do not like the way fact tags look does not mean that you should remove them. You should replace the tag, and allow someone to source that claim properly. - Crockspot (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I found a better source for that particular item. AIM may be biased. Biography (A&E Channel) I am hoping not. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  21:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah...I just reverted back too far...sorry.--MONGO (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * D'oh! - Crockspot (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

please join the discussion
please join the current discussion at the talk page and prove your point, thank you for your response. Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Prove yours...mine is already documented in the article...I have over 300 edits to it.--MONGO (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercury's RfC
I noticed you added a !vote to the "keep the bit" section. I just thought I'd let you know that Mercury has resigned the bit. Mr Which ??? 08:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but I didn't think he should have. I didn't see the closure as being a bad action, personally...but that doesn't mean I am right.--MONGO (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interest of letting sleeping dogs lie, I will simply agree to strongly disagree with you on that point. Regards, Mr Which ??? 08:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well...I'm more of an exclusionist in some areas, and I didn't see that she was notable enough outside our litle realm here to warrant an article. I thought I commented at the DRV...must have missed it. There are other issues I won't elaborate on, but one I will mention is that I need to see multiple admin miscues before I support having them relinquish their bit.--MONGO (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just say that I felt I had seen "multiple admin miscues", and leave it at that. Mr Which ??? 08:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to look over his work more before I could argue that point. He seems to have probably left us now anyway...altogether.--MONGO (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He has "retired" more than once in times of minor crises. It would be too bad if this time he actually meant it. I'm sure he's a fine editor, and we need more of those, not less. Mr Which ??? 08:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A deserved Barnstar

 * You're very welcome! Seasons greetings to you too! :) Acalamari 02:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wind River Peak
Are you sure that the image used in this article, Image:Wind River Peak.jpg, shows Wind River Peak? According to the USGS main image page for that image, it shows "Fremont Peak. View north northeast over Seneca Lake, Wind River Mountains. Sublette County, Wyoming, n.d." That's consistent with the geography. Seneca Lake is at N43.05472, W109.65722, NNE lies Fremont Peak, whereas Wind River Peak is much farther south and probably not even visible from Seneca Lake. (On that second map, Seneca Lake would be beyond the top left corner (NW).) BTW, the image was taken by David L. Gaskill, a USGS employee. Going by the very similar image here, I would say it was taken in September 1966. Lupo 12:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weird...I must have really messed up that one...I wonder why I thought that was Wind River Peak...I orginally uploaded that image in 2005. I have asked an admin at commons to move the image to it's proper place .--MONGO (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you could have told me... :-) Anyway, even admins cannot move images. The only way is to download and reupload the image (though maybe we have a bot somewhere for doing this). In this case, I've simply uploaded Image:Fremont Peak (Wind River Range).jpg and tagged Image:Wind_River_Peak.jpg for speedy deletion. Lupo 10:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Lupo, I forgot about you on that one. Thanks for straightening that image out for us.--MONGO (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Go away
Please keep your accusations and tendentious readings of my friendly comments to other users (asking them not to accuse you of POV-pushing) off my talk page. If you want to pursue administrative action against me, go ahead. I no longer want to hear your opinion about my work or "mission" at WP.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I will simply repeat the above. Please don't make these accusations on my user page. Start the dispute resolution process if you think I am being disruptive. Otherwise, accept our differences and edit happily.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI report filed [].--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hi MONGO, Your last comment at ANI may suggest a way forward. I was suprised that you still think, given my deeply flawed understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, that I should spread myself around a little. For some reason you are confident that I wouldn't erode the factual content of articles on other topics. Why is that? Would you have approached my recent edits to the WTC article as something other than CT-pushing if I had spent the last two months editing articles on, say, American poetry?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarification. Does it occur to you that your treatment of me, from day one, and the community's support of it, has influenced my degree of general commitment to this project? If I had met respect here as a newbie I may not have remained an SPA. After a while, in fact, I decided only to spend as much time here as I would need to see if edits like mine would be respected and disputes such as the ones I have been involved in could be dealt with civily. That's still my position. Your position, at least on the WTC articles, seems to be to test newbies, not welcome them. I obviously failed your test. And this most recent dispute has less to do with the actual edits I made then the fact that I failed that test.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi MONGO, here's my suggestion. Let's work together on a statement of the dispute that we can submit to ArbCom. I think you are right that no other options are open. But I think we can save ourselves and ArbCom a lot of grief by putting the case before them together, with some agreement about what the issues are. Here's a first draft. Feel free to make any suggestions you see fit. We can have the necessary discussion on the talkpage. All the best in the New Year.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thomas...I don't think you should wish for arbcom to settle the situation. From what I have seen, editors who are here for one purpose and that purpose is similar to the one you serve have traditionally had some sort of penalty brought on them. My guess is that you could end up barred from editing 9/11 related articles.--MONGO 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My hope, of course, is that ArbCom will take a more charitable view of my purpose than you do. Like I say in the draft, at this point WP will be better off with either one of us working on the WTC articles than with both of us. I just don't want to pull out unilaterally without letting ArbCom reach a solution that, to my mind, would be more optimal. But I take it you feel confident taking this before ArbCom?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thomas...I highly doubt that they will accept a "showdown" case like that which basically outlines a content dispute. Arbcom primarily deals with editors who violate policies. Sadly, what that means is that we're forced to outline each other's shortcomings rather than the net results to the articles themselves. As far as my confidence as to the end result...who knows actually....in a rational result, once I present the diffs, they would probably ask you to A) broaden your horizons and/or B) ban you from 9/11 related articles for a period of time....they might slap some kind of penalty on me as well, telling me to play nice (civility parole) or similar. But I doubt they would ban me from 9/11 related articles...in fact, 7 World Trade Center is featured partly due to some of my copyediting...copyediting and other hard work by Aude (the primary person by a long shot who made that article what it is now) which was performed during a period when your editing on all of our articles was virtually nonexistant. I dare say it is featured because you weren't around to upset the process. Sorry, but that is how I see it. If you want to roll the dice and see where it ends up, fine.--MONGO 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about staying away from the content issues. My crime is being an SPA; yours is being incivil. That has nothing to do with content. As I see it, you have been consistently violating policy (NPA, CIVIL, BITE, FAITH, etc.). Also as I see it, I have not ever violated policy. That's really the case I will be making to ArbCom. I'll tell you what: if you and I work together on presenting this case as clearly as possible, getting a statement of the dispute figured out that we can both agree to (which I really think we can), and ArbCom doesn't take the case, I'll let you state the conditions for my work. You can tell me how many other articles you want me to work on, and for how long, before you will treat me with respect on the WTC articles. I'll reserve the right to just bail altogether, of course, but I will consider your terms.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Day after Christmas
And I'd be remiss if I didn't offer a (somewhat belated) Merry Happy Holiday Season to the MONGO! Hope this year brings you fulfillment, challenges, happiness and peace. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Seasons Greetings - I hope your Christmas was very good and upcoming New Year is very enjoyable. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--MONGO 02:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WTC NPOV dispute
Hi MONGO, the normal NPOV dispute procedure is to tag it and then explain your issues on the talk page. Please do.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: I've gone ahead and started a section based on your edit summary.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)