User talk:MONGO

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
HouseBlaster	152	27	8	85	Open	00:50, 23 June 2024	0 hours	no	report

We have consensus at Barack Obama

... for certain details regarding William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. See Talk:Barack Obama. However, a small but extremely active and dedicated Obama fanboys are trying to WP:OWN and sanitize the article. Anyone who tries to aupport WP:NPOV and revert to the consensus version is threatened, called a sockpuppeteer, etc.

First, this has been an ugly situation for some time and more attention from admins is needed. Second, the Obama fanboys need to be brought under control. They do not own the article. WP:NPOV means proportionate representation of all significant POVs. The POV that is questioning Obama about his relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers is not a fringe POV. Editors who seek to include that POV in a balanced manner are not "Obama haters," and when they agree with one another, they are not sockpuppets. Please help. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in the bio of a political candidate for President sounds like an almost impossible task...and I really can't be of much service. I can monitor the article for vandalism as well as the one on McCain, but that would be the full extent of my ability to contribute to either page.--MONGO 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is there now appears to be balanced. If that is the consensus version he refers to, I can't see why anybody would want to "sanitize" it. --BenBurch (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1

As one of the people who has over 10 edits at Mammoth Cave National Park and has edited it this year, your attention is needed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanmail 'Zilla

'Zilla huge fan little MONGO way with words! All best dunghills fester, make pleasing cloud hang close over Tokyo! [The monster stretches out cosily for her daily nap on a king-size festering dungheap of diffs, stuffing a pallid sturgeon snack in her pocket in case of hunger pangs. ] Endangered snacks flavorsome! [small rawr of pleasurable anticipation ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 08:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Heh..if only more editors were as understanding of my wordplay as the ever wise prehistoric dinosaurs and pallid sturgeons are...but surely the gallows have been erected already and I expect to see a hanging before high noon.--MONGO 16:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Hey, how's it going? re [1] ... might want to change forment to foment. Cheers! Jim62sch^dissera! 18:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done...I am notoriously a wowzie speller.--MONGO 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 22:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, stop attacking me

Mongo, stop attacking me with your comment on Poupon's page (and please withdraw the comment). Let Lar do his mentoring and if he and the community accepts then I will prove that I am Poupon's socks. (The truth is that I am not Poupon himself but I am related to Poupon's socks). I am trying to come out clean but others are throwing roadblocks. GoodWikian (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I think that one speaks for itself. This isn't PoT. PoT said no other sock will be used when he needs to speak for himself. Near as I can tell (and as you know from reading the pages yourself) PoT is not seeking mentorship, either. Just peaceful editing far away from policy pages. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC, Noticeboard or other forum?

For the second time in a short period, User:Viridae has decided to follow me to an article and protect it, ostensibly for edit warring but in reality he's supporting trolls whose only interest is harassing me. Here's the relevant talk page discussion. I think the two IP's have a total of 3 edits to Wikipedia all of them reverts of me and all of them after Giovanni was banned. I just want him to stop involving himself with me. I guess I could go to the other extreme but I'd prefer he just went his separate way. I asked him to just take my talk page off his watchlist but he refused. I don't really know what his obsession is but supporting trolls and unable to spot them makes him somewhat unsuitable for using the tools the way he has. I figure I can go either noticeboard or RFC. What do you think? --DHeyward (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the noticeboard and explain why exactly you think that nmy protecting the article in response to a edit war is a bad idea? Viridae ^Talk 04:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really just following me around? --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this page is also watchlisted. Really I haven't followed you to any page, I have simply noticed edit warring and dealt with it. You have a problem with an article you are working on being protected - don't edit war on it. If that is Giovanni (I havent seen any strong evidence to that effect) take it to RFCU and get him blocked, of course if that was the case the protection on the most recent article would of course be lifted. I really do invite you to take it to WP:ANI for review though. Viridae ^Talk 07:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, why didn't you follow policy and inform the new users about edit warring and discussing their reverts on the talk page? Do you think that the 2 edit wonder is going to be to resolve any edit war through talk? Or maybe the more plausible answer is that you saw the 3RR warning on my talk page (the warning was for 3 edits over 2 weeks, and the mistaken editor apologized) and you were looking for a reason to block. Failing a legitimate reason you decided to protect the article in a manner that was neither constructive nor likely to result in a resolution since the 3 edit anons goal is only to revert me. The issue isn't this one incident, the issue is that this isn't the first time. I asked you politely to simply stop watching my talk page. There is nothing there for you. I would prefer that instead of you injecting yourself into any editing disputes that you put it on AN/I and let someone else review it. Certainly 3 edits in two weeks is not the kind of hot, urgent edit war that needs immediate article protection. --DHeyward (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please study the following: WP:AGF, Occam's razor and [2]. Viridae ^Talk 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as you can see, there is nothing to block for and no reason for you to follow me around looking for stuff. Your unblock had more to do with your desire to wheel war with WMC rather than anything to do with me. Please study [3] and simply leave me alone. It's not hard. Don't read my talk page. If you really want to help with 3RR or edit warring, patrol the noticeboards. --DHeyward (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I have a massive desire to wheel war with WMC. I follow him around too! Viridae ^Talk 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you here arguing with a DHeyward on my talkpage? I haven't even been involved in this matter.--MONGO 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To annoy the living shit out of you of course MONGO - I stalk you too, didnt you know? Viridae ^Talk 03:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your admin tools should have taken away long ago.--MONGO 05:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFARB MONGO go for it! Viridae ^Talk 05:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your deal, man?--MONGO 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are full of hollow threats. I really urge you to try and carry one of them out - I have refuted almost every single piece of evidence you and Filll provided at the current RfArb and acknowledged the rest. The majority of that evidence was taken so far out of context as to be uncrecognisable (just like your most recent addition, where you failed to mention that there was significant support for those blocks, just not the length) - you have no evidence whatsoever but continue to trumpet my "involvement in a long standing dispute" with whatever editor you think I have wronged this time. MONGO this is my final request/warning: Either stay well away from me and my actions unless you are DIRECTLY involved or make sure you have a buttload of evidence you are willing to provide to support your claims. Your well poisoning has been noticed. Viridae ^Talk 05:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for this most recent fiasco of yours and indeed to believe there was is simply ridiculous. I have had enough of your threats and warnings and indeed, your behavior on my talkpage, where you followed DHeyward here and first argued with him in regards to an article I have never once edited (and I was offline for a few days to boot)and now presenting this "request/warning" to me is completely out of line for any administrator of this website. If you post your admin actions for review...I will review them. Now I really do think you best move on.--MONGO 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say consensus. When posting things for review, I never ever want your input unless I specifically ask for it. Is that quite clear MONGO? Viridae ^Talk 06:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will review your actions anytime and anywhere I want to.--MONGO 06:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you repeatedly to stop, or provide evidence. You have failed on both counts. Please now comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#MONGO Viridae ^Talk 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae, please stop posting here. You have a history of making harassing posts on this talk page [4] [5] Enough is enough. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously...I am fed up with it.--MONGO 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ludicrous"

Will do - thanks for bringing this to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended and I am not "holding" it against you...just wanted to make sure you knew that those less used to be vilified might see show responses as being hostile. But, I recognize why you would think I am being ludicrous. You're not the only person that thinks that of course!--MONGO 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, attacking somebody's argument as "ludicrous" is well within my personal conception of civility, but sometimes we can all use a reminder that not everybody shares our personal value systems. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final request

This is my final request for you to stop commenting on my administrative actions in any way unless you are directly involved. I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence when you have concerns about my actions, and you continue to fail to provide that. You instead repeatedly show up and poison the well with your unfounded accusations of bias. Because you have been repeatedly asked to stop and have repeatedly failed to do so I consider this harrasment and am asking you one last time to stop or I will take this further down the DR chain. Thankyou. Viridae ^Talk 06:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you post for review of your admin actions, I WILL review them. I have posted plenty of evidence, as has Felonious Monk and others, about your misuse of tools and position as an administrator at the arbcom case you are named in, so writing me saying I provide no evidence is erroneous. Your two recent blocks were overturned...the comunity did not agree with your rationale and or length of the blocks...and I do read WR..there, a user named Aloft posted a link to the article Brown Dog affair, claiming that Crum375 and SlimVirgin were tag team edit warring...you subsequently protected the article page, then blocked Para and Crum375. You then posted these admin actions for review here and went back to WR and posted a link to your review request on ANI stating to "prepare for fireworks"[6]...so you even then suspected that your actions would likely bring arguments. I guess you must think I can't read blogs or look at editing diffs...your blocks weren't based on any reports here at AIV or 3RR...they were based on the long standing theme at WR that Slim and Crum are socks or meatpuppets....and the chance to "get" either simply proved irresistible eh?--MONGO 14:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae...I think if we are going to go do anything about each other, you should wait and see what transpires at the case you are already named in first. If they do nothing, then we can discuss this matter further.--MONGO 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your answer to my identical request of you was...."no.". I suspect MONGO is now on "double secret probation" for pointing out all of your abusive administrator actions? --DHeyward (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You "suspect"?? WP is not a crystal ball. --rogerd (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.....[7]--MONGO 04:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[8] MONGO, I think our friend thinks he is Dean Wormer. --rogerd (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi prot

If you are beccoming a target again do you want semi prot for a while? How much activity is it getting?Viridae ^Talk 02:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It comes and goes...I don't think semi is necessary at present...thanks though.--MONGO 11:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier Advance

On AN/I you mentioned not being able to find much info about any advancing glaciers. This article might be helpful. It has info about glacial growth at Mount Shasta and mentions a few other locations which had growth until recently. All localized cases with higher snowfall, itself attributable to climate change, temporarily outpacing increased melting. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...I did see similar evidence before regarding Shasta...I have plans to update the article on Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and will be adding information as you have mentioned and explanations for such accordingly.--MONGO 05:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rootology

Yeah, it's a difficult situation. As you know, rootology is hoping to avoid a return to old problems by not interacting with you, as his unblock notice states. he's done right and asked others to intervene rather than reply himself, which is good judgement too.

It's going to be hard for him if he gets addressed with critical or skeptical comments whilst trying to reacquaint himself with editing. That tends to be hard for anybody. I think your point's made, that you have concerns whether he should be considering proposing remedies, but I'd ask that the concern is dropped. It's been stated a few times; doubtless noted too. He'll have a fair chance, same as anyone else unblocked. If you'd be able to avoid interacting with him, it would possibly make it easier on him to avoid interacting back with you as well. If you have concerns about his posts at the RFAR case and they haven't been stated sufficiently, can you consider if they really need saying? He is a fully welcomed back member of the community, he's unblocked, and he's entitled to do all he can to make good contributions and be judged by those alone; it would be easier if he shows by his actions if those are good or otherwise and you and he continue in separate ways.

Many thanks, and hoping it works well,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I debate that he is "fully welcomed". As far as I am concerned, his past behavior was so shitty that I think he would be best off NOT proposing remedies on someone he had prior disagreements with, certainly not until he has demonstrated over a long time that his intentions here are honorable. I also know you supported rather strongly the recreation of an ED article...the very website that Rootology was so adept at adding his pearls of wisdom to. I will call a spade a spade and if the arbitration committee is now allowing recently unbanned editors to have the arrogance to propose remedies be brought forth on someone they had disagreements with before they were banned, then that is just loony. What the heck is a recently unbanned person...(did you look at the crap this guy put me through at RFAr MONGO...or his ban evading appearance at RFAr Seabhcan as User:XP) doing at arbitration cases????? Are you people going mad? Maybe you need to reevaluate what his rationale for being unbanned is. My understanding is that he was going to stick to article space unless he got into an independent dispute and then needed dispute resolution...not so he could return and propose sanctions on those he had prior dealings with. This is simply bad news and you guys need to look into it. Hint: Recently unbanned editors should do all they can to stay away from arbitration cases...is this some kind of revelation?--MONGO 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"9/11 attacks" dropped "terrorist"

I have not been following the 9/11-related pages as much as I once did. I did notice that "terrorist" was dropped from the 9/11 attacks article title. Was this done as a finding of fact that the terrorists were not the perpetrators, or did an ideologically like-minded Wiki-mob gather and change the title? patsw (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title was changed some time ago. The term terrorist is still found in the lead paragraph and surely the radical left and those who want to argue against the UN resolution condemning the attacks as acts of terrorism simply won't let it go. I think I gave up trying to work on the title and stuck just to ensuring that the fact that virtually every single legislative body worldwide condemned the attacks as acts of terrorism, wasn't lost completely. My activity on those articles has also waned significantly.--MONGO 22:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz

Thanks for your comment; my god, you need a fucking sense of humour to stay sane here. But even that is sometimes not enough. --Rodhull andemu 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...I knew you were being sarcastic...I found your comment to be pretty funny!--MONGO 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the politics here utterly yawnworthy, and generally unforgiving. I remember your own request for resysop and IIRC, I supported it. We are working in a pretty fast-moving situation, in which I see RfAs for people I've never even seen around WP:ANI and WP:AN, which are pretty much talking shops for the usual suspects. I just get on with it. So what if you fucked up six months ago? We all do, but some people do not seem to see beyond that to the general picture that, for example, you were an effective vandal-fighter. Ho hum. --Rodhull andemu 22:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowstone national park dates

You reverted edits on 1877 vs. 1872, and on October 1 vs. October 2, from an IP editor, with respect to Yellowstone National Park. Consistent with research about the effect of IP editor changes, I tend to believe that IP editors have accuracy on their side. What's going on? How could an IP editor be convinced that the article's statements were wrong? At a minimum, i think edit summaries responding to the IP editor's views, and/or suggesting what they need to provide, would be helpful. Cheers, doncram (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh...I fixed your linked article...I haven't edited that article since July 12th...please provide a link to where I reverted apparent vandalism if you expect me to understand what you posting about.--MONGO 15:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

What's up MONGO. Are you still only pawn in game of life? ;) --kizzle (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much...more so now than ever it seems. Hope all is good with you!--MONGO 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 article

Hi Mongo could you explain your reasoning for deleting text from the talk page of this article Single purpose account IMO is not a reason thanks. BigDunc^Talk 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He beat me to it (My connection is too slow.) Read WP:TPG - that screed was a huge morass of commentary about the subject which could not possibly help improve the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. That article only has potential for becoming featured level if we eliminate the neverending conspiracy theory nonsense that is continuously plastered on the talk pages by single purpose accounts whose sole mission is disruption of the known evidence.--MONGO 13:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for clarifacation but he didn't state WP:TPG no harm no foul. BigDunc^Talk 13:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its easy to look back at edit summaries and think, should have said, violation of TPG by SPA, but ah well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My original removal was summarized here...read about single purpose accounts and check out the edits by that IP and the other user...all to the same page. The IP is likely that of banned user User:Lovelight [9].--MONGO 13:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Protected area coordinates broken

I have recently fixed a couple if instances of {{Infobox Protected area}}, (example) where the display was horribly broken because no seconds had been entered in the coordinates. The only way to resolve the problem in the short term was to add zero seconds, but this is obviously not an optimal solution.

I reported the problem on its talk page over two weeks ago, but no-one has responded. Since you recently edited the template (not that I think you caused the problem) and obviously have better template coding skills than I, can you fix it, please? Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went and restored it to my last edit at the template. Hopefully that will fix the problems. Sometimes changes to some of the embedded parameters such as the coordinates impacts the infoboxes. I've been pretty busy lately so I must have missed yours and others comments at the template talk page....let me know if you have any other issues.--MONGO 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for helping out with the Khalid al-Mihdhar article, especially since I know your Wikipedia time is limited nowadays. It always helps a lot to have others go over details. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...I hope I got some things touched up, but since I am a little rusty on MOS I am a bit apprehensive to do too much. The article looks great but I didn't "vote" to get it to FA level yet...you and Sherurcij have done a great job.--MONGO 01:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Covered bridges

My sources on covered bridges are almost all specific to Pennsylvania. I found this possible book source in [10] Howard, A., Covered Bridges of Virginia, Village Press, Unionville, CT, 1999. Sorry not to know more, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo...well, I am going to look that one over this week...thanks for the lead. When I was last in Pennsylvania, I saw a number of covered bridges in Lancaster County. Thanks again.--MONGO 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on Amazon.com and found a few more books: Covered Bridges in Virginia: Nine Old Ladies in the Slow Lane by Leola, B. Pierce; A portfolio of covered bridges of Virginia: Wooden bridges standing in 1987 by Joe Nutt; and Covered bridges of Maryland and the Virginias: An illustrated guide by Edward Reichert. Not sure if it would be in Covered Bridges Across North America by Joseph Conwil or not. Fun with InterLibrary Loan.

I also figure the bridge is in the National Bridge Inventory, so try looking in [11]. Ram-Man has done nice articles and a list for all the Lancaster County bridges. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood National and State Parks

Mongo, Marskell and I are working our way through Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles, identifying articles that can be moved off the list without the need for a Featured article review. Redwoods needs only some minor attention: would you be able to tweak it back to a shining state? I installed the toolbox on the talk page: it shows dab links that need repair and some dead sources and external links. There is a very minor bit of unsourced text that you might also hit. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a few days, but will look into this. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.--MONGO 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, I followed your edits on the article and used some of the information for de-WP. And I found this image in the digital archive of the NPS recently. Would you like to use it? I think most of the images in the article are too brightly lit and don't give an adequate impression of the forest, that's why I was happy for this one with a low key. Greetings --h-stt !? 11:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your RFAr statement

You said:

Alecmcconroy appears to be overinvolved in "fixing" what he perceives as problems...yet has added little to nothing as far as encyclopedic material for the bulk of this entire year[12]. I think the arbitration committee needs to cease considering any cases brought forth from what can arguably be easily seen as editors who are here for little other than harassment and creating drama.--MONGO 00:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, I know you have a problem with me, but please respect-- I am not your enemy, I am not SV's enemy. You both contribute to the project in ways I never, never could-- in terms of both volume of contributions and quality. I do and have made substantial article-space contributions (just these week I did a snazzy diagram for the WAIS-III in fact), but there's no doubting that my contributions are a firefly compared to the brilliant sun that is the contributions offered by someone like SV.

But when you respond to legitimate concerns by personal attacks against the messenger, you don't help anything. The fact is, SV is in trouble. She need to tweak her behavior, before she gets into a problem so big that she's beyond help.

Once upon a time, a long long long time back, I tried to help you that way. I asked for help somewhere-- ANI or RFC or somewhere, asking for others to help you realize you needed to change things. You are a great contributor, a workhorse, and if you had gotten the right feedback, you'd probably be sitting on Arbcom or the Foundation Board today. Unfortunately, your friends felt it was more important to support you through thick and thin, and to dismiss those who had been stung by your words as having a flawed character and you as being free of any problems at all. Ultimately, however, because your friends didn't help you, you wound up stepping on too many toes.

SV needs that kind of help now. Attacking my character isn't going to solve anything-- but it makes things much worse for her. It perpetuates the myth that the only people who have a problem with some of her behavior are people who have great character flaws. If you try hard enough to convince her that's true, she's liable to believe you, and keep on truckin' until she does something that nobody can ignore.

Again, I'm sorry for whatever mistakes I've made in dealing with you in the past that have led you to be so sour on me. As I was writing out my little post on RFAr, I almost put in as a wikicomment "Insert MONGO's claim I'm a bad editor here", but I decided that would be way too snarky, so I didn't. But the point it, yeah, I know you feel I'm a bad editor, Arbcom knows you feel I'm a bad editor, and pretty much everyone else who knows both our usernames probably knows too. If reciting that sentiment is cathartic, maybe it does some good. But I know it does a lot more bad-- it makes it all the harder for the community to decide to return your admin bit, and it makes it harder for SV to see that she's messing up and need a change. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my arbcom comment as you have pasted above is accurate.--MONGO 21:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]