Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 3


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

MONGO 3
Final (4/31/2); ended 11:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC) - Candidate withdrew nomination  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC) 

Nomination
– Active for almost 8 years, over 50,000 edits, 8 Featured Articles and more than 800 article starts. I was previously an admin from 2005 to late 2006 but was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee in 2006. An attempt to regain adminship in 2008 failed, so trying again now. I don't participate in deletion discussions often, and didn't even back when I used to be an admin. I am not going to be using the tools to make any blocks on registered editors, nor am I going to participate in closing Afd's or related discussions, or participating in page protection requests. I would like to help out dealing with copyvios and am good at identifying them since I am primarily a researcher and am always watchful for even close paraphrasing in articles. I am also finding I need the tools to avoid delays when I am creating articles as I am currently asking other admins for their assistance multiple times a month (I usually ask via email). The title of Administrator is of no concern to me since there isn't anything special in the least about that title. I will be open to recall by three neutral administrators who have had no prior disputes with me, but the last thing I would want to do is to give others any reason to demand that I hand in my tools under a cloud.--MONGO 23:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

'''Note: Please leave this open for 24 hours at which time I will either request it remain open or I will withdraw. I appreciate all the feedback as it will help me improve. Thanks'''.--MONGO 02:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing Looks like a SNOW close.--MONGO 10:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A:As I mentioned in my self nomination, my use of the tools will be to help facilitate article creation and cleanup, work on speedy deletions and assist in dealing with copyvio issues and vandalism. In the majority of recent changes patrols I have done, it appears the vandals are less bold in recent years and tend to cease after a series of increasingly stern warnings. I'd prefer to encourage all to be productive than issue blocks. I don't believe civility blocks are effective, and would never perform such a block on a registered editor. I don't have any noticeboards on my watchlist anymore.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A:After I got the assistance of another editor to review my sentence structure, I recently managed to get Grand Teton National Park to FA. Other FA's I was the primary author on I am most pleased with include Yellowstone fires of 1988, Elk, Pallid sturgeon and Retreat of glaciers since 1850. I have enjoyed bringing a couple bios into existence such as Ben Kuroki and William F. Raynolds. I am also the founder of WikiProject Glaciers. The vast majority of my article starts are stubs or start-class articles since they tend to be about a solitary mountain, lake or glacier and in most of those cases, there simply isn't much information available, but I still manage to find at least 2 reliable references. I've spent a lot of time doing cleanup on articles in my scope of interest by updating references and adding location maps and better referenced geocoordinates. In 2005, I was heavily involved in the effort to get semi-protection implemented by the developers.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A:Yes...on several occasions. Some I handled well and others I didn't. Hence a previous desysopping. The 9/11 related articles have been an area that has gained me a few antagonists...but my activity level at those articles is now quite low and has been for some time. There are a few editors I have been avoiding as of late and will continue to do so. I have no intentions of using admin tools on anything related to 9/11 articles or against anyone I have had any disputes with. Around the time of the Requests for arbitration/Attack sites case back in 2007, I hammered out a consensus on the No personal attacks policy page to help encouage editors from deliberately linking to offsite harassment and much of what I worked for is still binding as policy.


 * Additional question from The Devil's Advocate
 * 4. You state that you do not believe civility blocks are effective. Would you mind explaining how that jives with what you said last month at the request for clarification regarding User:Malleus Fatuorum?
 * A:I do not believe that civility blocks are effective. I wasn't suggesting a civility block in that situation.--MONGO 00:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When you struck out your comments on that case you stated in your edit summary: "the committee has once again demonstrated that they no longer want to defend our policies...calling each other horrible names is now officially supported by the committee and apparently by many administrators)". Does that not indicate that you were suggesting a block on the basis of incivility.?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. I was suggesting a ban.--MONGO 00:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Trevj
 * 5. If this RfA is successful, will you be open to recall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talk • contribs) 00:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A:Yes, as I stated in my opening comment, "I will be open to recall by three neutral administrators who have had no prior disputes with me."--MONGO 00:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops! Sorry, I only skimmed through that once, then had a look around and didn't re-read before posting here. Thanks for answering anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure...in fact, to clarify further, I am more than happy to stand for a reconfirmation Rfa in a year if requested. The last thing I would wish is to be in the situation whereby others would want me to have my toolkit removed.--MONGO 01:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional question from 188.30.136.45
 * 6. Do you still believe that the opinions of "foreigners and leftists" are worth less than your own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.136.45 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A:No.--MONGO 00:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional question from
 * 7. You've ruled out the usage of some tools. Could you be explicit about the tools you have in mind that you would use? Thanks. &mdash; Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   08:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A:I would use the tools but the block button would only be used in cases of obvious vandalism as I'd defer blocking the vast majority of usernamed accounts to others. I would hope to save articles that are solely copyvios by deletion and then recreation with reliable neutral sources. I would use the tools to address vandalism issues and if no alternative was left, block repeat offenders. As I mentioned, I have no interest in being known for making "difficult blocks" and don't even wish to participate in those discussions...nor would I be working on page protections or similar. I have been running into various situations during article cleanup or creation where I have to ask other admins to do what I should be able to do for myself.--MONGO 09:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for
 * Edit summary usage for MONGO can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Well, now that MONGO has tried it, isn't it Malleus's turn to run next? Automatic  Strikeout  03:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support I don't have any qualms about you potentially abusing admin powers because I'm certain you'll be under intense scrutiny from a sizeable number of other admins/users. Rotten regard       Softnow  00:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - it's been long enough, I'm willing to give him another chance. I would expect him to avoid using the admin tools in any area he may be personally involved, of course. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Mongo has the experience to know when not to use the tools; his actions will be under scrutiny; he's open to recall. Can't see this being anything but a net benefit to the project. Tom Harrison Talk 01:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I dont know you very well, but I trust if you've been editing peacefully for 7 years after the desysop you aren't just doing it all just to get adminship and then cause us all a bunch of problems. Everything else I can see about you looks trustworthy, so I'll support this RfA.   ☮  Soap  ☮  03:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Absolutely not. No way is this editor suitable administrator material, as even a cursory examination of his history would reveal. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Mongo has all the contributions etc., but there is no way such an inflammable editor should be an administrator. The very notion of this going live is mindboggling. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I hate doing this to one of the most dedicated editors Wikipedia has ever seen, but MONGO is far too divisive to be an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Nope, not even close, sorry. This editor is way too inflammable, agree with Malleus and Drmies. TBrandley 00:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Ludicrous given their divisiveness and antipathy to those whom they seem personally to dislike, including infantile desires to "claim" that they should be given credit for putative bans of other contributors. Simply does not have the maturity for adminship now, although they could always try working on it. Thankfully, I was sat down with a laptop when I saw this, rather than stood somewhere fiddling with an Android: I could have done myself an injury. I can try to find some diffs if anyone really needs to see them. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A handful of diffs from within the last 12 months would be informative, if anyone (not necessarily you) has the time and inclination to seek and provide them. -- Trevj (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's one. I am off to bed shortly but there is a specific, immature gloating one that I'd love to track down beforehand. I might add that, much as I understand the difference between a block and a ban, the reply to the query of is in my opinion wikilawyering with the best of them. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's something about obnoxious assholery and here's another gem. These were related to an RfA, from an editor who now wants to get the tools back. BTW, in response to Secret, way below in the neutral section, the desysop and all that was long before my time and I have no problem with forgiving and forgetting. My experiences with this editor are more recent and they are what I am considering, not the past. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another worrying recent sequence here. The background is complex but the gist is, MONGO consistently refused to accept that he should check out the veracity and background to a complaint made by a specific contributor at the ArbCom discussion. He preferred to take it at face value because it suited his ends, despite there being evidence provided that it might possibly be a one-sided take on things. There is AGF on the one hand (his position, it would seem) and on the other there is the issue that a potential admin chose not to accede to a request to do some basic checks. (Obviously, this is not the choice example I am hunting for, but it will do until tomorrow). - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "gem" linked to by Drmies is the one I was looking for. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I do not believe this editor has the necessary temperament to be a responsible administrator.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per all above comments, too inflammable to handle any stress that comes with the bit. Buggie111 (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose As has been stated in the nomination, there's no intent to use the tools in the most basic of areas where their use is required. There's nothing that the editor does now, or plans to do that require any additional buttons on the regular basis that is required (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose For reasons and examples provided above. This user's contributions are best made outside of the realm of admin. - MrX 01:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What examples are provided above other than a January 2005 link in a question? Tell me for us sitting in the fence here Secret account 01:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer to question 3, the diff in question 4 and the answer. As well as a few I found on my own  . The tone, attitude and contentious history are what concern me, not necessarily the candidate's aptitude or intentions. - MrX 01:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See the diffs in my question to MONGO. I can easily provide more diffs of MONGO's misconduct towards me and other editors, such as Malleus.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm convinced Secret account 01:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the above concerns - Based on his history and temperament, I feel that Mongo is an unsuitable candidate for an administrator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a very regretful oppose, but not a "never" oppose, as he was a good administrator before his unfortunate desysopping, always been a strong supporter of him for standing his ground in what used to be a highly controversial area with 9-11 (it gotten much more stabilized in recent years), and he is one of the most dedicated editors in this project considering the bs he been though. But those remarks he made, while I'm sure he now regrets it, MONGO should have never gotten into this Malleus mess, some of the statements are just beyond shocking and very recent. I been avoiding these drama noticeboards, but I'm sure his comments helped made the Malleus mess way worse than it was. I don't think giving him the tools back is a wise idea yet, I suggest withdrawal. Secret account 01:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose ??? strongest possible oppose. Temperamentally unsuited. -- Dianna (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I guess I haven't been lurking hard enough if I thought MONGO had changed. The relatively recent diffs posted in this RfA make it pretty clear MONGO doesn't have the temperament to be an admin. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Drmies, Diannaa, and Sjones. He doesn't (at the present time) have the proper temperament to be an admin. As an aside, I really don't see a need for the tools anyway. Go   Phightins  !  02:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Malleus. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - per Drmies. Too inflammable to give the admin rights. An editor who wants the credit of another editor's leaving Wikipedia is certainly not a thing I want to see in an admin. I also don't see any need of tools; there is nothing that they have been doing or plan to do which would require extra tools. Sorry to say, but according to me, MONGO is nowhere near being a good candidate for adminship.  TheSpecialUser TSU 03:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I'm not impressed by the candidate's insistence that this RFA stay open after its purpose has been served. Townlake (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Earnest, well-intentioned editor, but doesn't seem to have learned enough from his sabbatical yet and has expressed no real need for the tools.  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 04:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Sorry, but TheSpecialUser's diff kills it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose The candidate was desysopped by ArbCom in 2006 after Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Regranting sysop tools to those who have had them forcibly stripped is not a recipe for success. As for "he will be under scrutiny by many" and "he is open for recall", I believe we've successfully desysopped a SINGLE person via the latter since its inception, and the former has absolutely NO teeth whatsoever. Once someone is an admin, they are more than likely one for life. The Master (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We had about four or five editors that I remember since the recall was implicated that stepped down though a valid recall (which means a recall process that was created by good faith from editors who weren't involved) and two who refused to step down but one got desysopped by ArbCom anyways and the other one eventually stepped down after intense scrutiny. Though I opposed MONGO's RFA and this isn't going to pass because of his own kinda shocking actions, I trust and know MONGO enough that he would step down if he ever recovers the administrative tools and a valid recall is formed, that he will step down if one is successfully formed. Note This comment is not a support of the recall process, but a rebuke of an inaccurate comment. Secret account 08:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Very clearly does not have the temperament we typically expect in an admin candidate, per many of the diffs mentioned above.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Never. Wizardman  04:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Malleus, Drmies, and TheSpecialUser.  Ish dar  ian  06:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose largely per Drmies, and the 'gem' of a diff (and others, above). These indicate to me that the candidate does not possess the right temperament for adminship. — sparklism  hey! 07:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per the civility issues raised above. Epbr123 (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Just No. MONGO is far too confrontational, far too aggressive, and just too uncivil (while ironically championing incivility bans on others and arguing that admins who disagree should be emergency desysopped ). MONGO doesn't possess anything like the temperament or judgment needed to be an admin. (I feel so strongly on this one that I've come out of provisional retirement to !vote) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I know that he dresses his edits nicely, but per the first three opposers, BWIlkins and The Master, he has no intent to use the tools, he's inflammable, and he was desysopped before. Once recalled, never agreeable to me.  Pits  Confer Guests 09:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Why? Where do I start? Well, how about this edit, where MONGO said, amongst other things, "I suggest Malleus be site banned for not less than 30 days, and any of the usual cadre of aiding and abetting admins that might excessively protest such a ban be emergency desysopped." We are to have an administrator who takes that attitude to any other administrator who disagrees with him?? If this were a one-off remark, I might put it down to an exaggerated expression of his frustration, not to be taken literally. However, this is far from a one-off remark: it is typical of the attitude that he has expressed over and over again, over the course of several years, when has found that he has been confronted with other editors who have the effrontery to take a view different from his own. I could spend more time giving more reasons why this person should never be an administrator, but that alone is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose' - extremely poor attitude - I wouldn't expect any editor to behave in this way, let alone an admin. Entirely unsuitable. GiantSnowman 10:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - Sorry - way too volatile.  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 10:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose MONGO serves the Wikipedia, the world, and himself best by writing quality articles. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Want to lean towards supporting, but then I remember reading about past kerfuffles. But really can't bring myself to strongly oppose for them either. So, planting right here. - jc37 23:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I get for not following my typical SOP and going through contribs. But, regardless I'll stay here and not join the pile-on. Though if things don't change, it's looking like a fair chance of snow. - jc37 02:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure MONGO would not abuse the tools, and he certainly has the experience to use them correctly. But I'm not sure if I support, so I'm going to sit here for now. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * His desysopping was probably one of the most unpopular decisions ArbCom ever made considering the circumstances of it and the horrible off-wiki abuse MONGO went though (which explains some of his actions back then). I gladly supported his last RFA, plus one of the editors from that ArbCom case who got banned, managed to get unbanned and pass a (very close) RFA, so there is a forgive and forget opportunity here. The issue here though is that I don't see a particularly strong reason for MONGO for wanting the tools plus I really want to see a closer look of his history since the last RFA as many of the opposers weren't active on Wikipedia when his ArbCom case happened and they are opposing citing his behavior. I don't pay attention to the dramaboards enough, so I really want to see some new evidence of his behavior before I decide to support/oppose/ or stay neutral. I'm leaning support right now. Secret account 00:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see any need to pile-on at this point. I think several users have demonstrated why supporting this would be a bad idea and quite frankly I'm surprised MONGO put himself in a position to take all this heat.  Automatic  Strikeout  03:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will add, for the record, that a candidate's need of the tools, or lack of a need, is of no significance to me. Automatic  Strikeout  03:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.