This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

After being involved in having arbitration being brought up against me and my involvement in two other arbitration cases, as well as enforcement of past decisions, I know I am well versed in the process and procedures of arbitration. My biggest concern is a desire to see an improvement in the decision making timeline. I don't see anything as broken with the system, but will always be open to changes suggested by anyone, and will be more than happy to forward all reasonable requests to fellow arbitrators and the foundation. I have over 20,000 edits with 11,000 or so of those in wiki article space, four featured articles I either started or assisted on as well as another 200 plus other article starts. I am a strong defender of precedent and policy, demand heavily on the use of reliable sources and oppose attempts to misuse Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. I will always recuse myself in cases I have a conflict of interest in, will be completely open to recall/review and demonstrate complete transparency in my edits, as I always have. Most of all, I want to ensure that those editors and issues which are problematic to ensuring we create the world's most reliable encyclopedic source are dealt with swiftly and fairly. Thank you for your time.

Questions Withdrawing...thanks to all that have taken the time to respond. The community has spoken.-- MONGO 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Levelheaded in disputes yet firm in resolve. -- ²¹⁰ physicq ( c) 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Very weak support. AmiDaniel ( talk) 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC). reply
4. Support, I trust his judgement and his answers on the 100k+ question page. Every one has a POV, he stated he will recuse himself if there is a conflict of interest. -- Dual Freq 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Not generic. Arbcom doesn't need members who will blindly follow the rules. I believe he will make good judgements. Also as per Dual Freq -- snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Moral Support and saying he will step down if he has pov on the subject.-- John Lake 07:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support. Cautiously, since I have at times been in pretty strong disagreement with MONGO's actions. But judgement is sound in general and I think that people who would put up with the E.D. harrasment crap as well as MONGO did are few and far between. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. I think he will have a uniquely relevant perspective and sympathy for besieged users. That seems like a good thing to have on ArbCom to me. — Doug Bell  ^talk 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
10. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support per Sjakkalle (second sentence) and Doug Bell. Also, MONGO was helpful and sympathetic to harassment victims before he was harassed himself. Those who find him too "controversial" might suddenly find themselves "controversial" if they became victims of the kind of abuse MONGO has had to put up with. The ED problems on Wikipedia would never have reached those proportions if other WIkipedians had given him the support they should have; and in all other matters (e.g. dealing with sockpuppets), he's been civil and fair. AnnH ♫ 10:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
12. -- Zleitzen 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Providing MONGO recuses himself of topics which he feels passionate about, his ability to cut through the crap could be a major benefit. reply
13. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Strong support - knows the difference between a troll and someone just venting off. Knows that admins can sometimes be abusive (even if unintentionately). -- Sugaar 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Strong support I couldn't have said it any better than AnnH. He uses good judgment in his interactions with others. Experienced and mature. -- rogerd 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
16. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Has common sense, good judgement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support 172 | Talk 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support Despite our off-wiki POV differences, I have found MONGO consistently of sound judgment. I do trust him to recuse where necessary. Although he didn't act perfectly, I can't hold the ED stuff against him (exceptional circumstance not of his own making, per AnnH.) I do think he would bring a valuable perspective to the committee. Xoloz 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Strong Support per comments by User:Anomo -- Tbeatty 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support. Antandrus (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support; good judgement, committed to quality. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support - stop relying on WR and Wikitruth for your news, people. Civility can't trump common sense. -- Elar a girl ^{Talk| Count} 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
24. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 22:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Strong support. MONGO is more concerned with WP than with political correctness. He can detect BS from 10 miles through a snowstorm. If a thin-skinned obsession with "civility" is more important than protecting WP from destructive behavior, the project inevitably will collapse. Raymond Arritt 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
26. riana_ dzasta 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support - has experience and sound judgment. Metamagician3000 09:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support. Giano 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

1. MONGO is involved in far too many controversies to make me feel comfortable voting for him. -- Cyde Weys 00:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Major, major, major civility concerns. Arbitrators should be at LEAST above average at following WP:CIVIL. - Amarkov ^blah _edits 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Strong oppose. Consistently incivil, consistently abuses the tools he has, and is incapable of resolving his own conflicts with users properly, making me wonder why he feels he can resolve the conflicts of others. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
5. -- Majorly 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Nothing personal, but I can't say I'm enamoured with the idea of arbitrator recall, for much the same reason that I dislike administrator recall, except stronger. The power entrusted to arbitrators is great, and I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of an arbitrator that can be recalled. theProject 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Gurch 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

   I feel his personal opinions may get in the way of arbitrator duties. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

   This user is banned. -- Srikeit 08:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

8. Too many controversies. Cowman109 ^Talk 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Ral315 ( talk) ( my votes) 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
11. - crz crztalk 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Agree, too controversial. -- Core desat 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Sadly Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Due to the many controversies. Hello32020 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Prior conflicts are too significant to warrant support. Also proposes arbitrator recall, an idea that can only serve to compromise decision making. -- bainer ( talk) 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
16. No. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Sarah Ewart 01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
19. -- Striver 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose. Too much controversy. Jd2718 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose, can't trust him after fully seeing his approach to existing disputes, don't think he should take on new ones. — CharlotteWebb 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Involved in arbcom level dispute too recently -- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
23. KPbIC 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Too controversial, involved in too many disputes. ^ demon ^{[omg plz]}  03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
25. — Mi ra 03:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose per Cyde Weys KazakhPol 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    • KazakhPol does not have suffrage; he registered at 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

26. Oppose per above. Takes controversies way too personally. Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Rebecca 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Aminz 03:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Too much of a lightning rod himself. Sorry.-- BenBurch 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Holding to a policy that recent ArbCom dispute participants are automatic oppose-votes at this time. Opposing without prejudice towards a future election. Serpent's Choice 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Ars Scriptor 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
32. (1)not neutral(2)involved in many controversies. what will happen if he/she sit at Arbcom? Peace. -- Nielswik _(talk) 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose  Funky Monkey   (talk)  04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Ter e nc e Ong 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Absoutely not, way to many controversies surrounding this user to make him part of the final process of decision making here on Wikipedia. semper fi — Moe 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Strongly oppose. It has been my experience that this user uses moderator powers in highly questionable ways, puts his POV before policy, and is consistently incivil to those he disagrees with. He is perhaps the worst possible candidate on Wikipedia for the ArbCom. -- Hyperbole 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose MONGO needs to block way more editors than the drawn out arbitration process provides for. Imagine if all those whacky conpsiracy nuts needed ArbCom before being banned indefinitely? It's better that MONGO blocks them and lets them appeal his actions than having to wait for the ArbCom to create a block. Telegrams from MONGO should be delivered immediately, not delayed. -- Tbeatty 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Change to Support per Anomo -- Tbeatty 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

37. Nufy8 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Dylan Lake 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. Not enough respect for WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. -- Alecmconroy 07:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Has not evidenced the measured judgment and even temperament one would want to find in a prospective arbitrator. Joe 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
41. NO...    N...    O...    NO... nuff said.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
42. NOT IN A BILLION YEARS per Armakov. Has no dispute resolution experience except as a frequent participant. SchmuckyTheCat 08:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose Dr Debug ( Talk) 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose in the strongest possible terms. Everyking 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Agree with Cyde, a bit too controversial for ArbCom. – Ch acor 09:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose - Temper -- Van helsing 09:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
47. cj | talk 10:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose, sadly - all-around good guy, but has a tendency to act a bit rashly and to take matters a bit too personally -- Ferkelparade π 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Weak oppose, sadly. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose per Ferkelparade. - Aksi_great ( talk) 13:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose on various temperament issues noted above. -- CBD 13:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose -- Cactus.man ✍ 13:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose -- from interactions, user's aim appears to be advancement of personal goals/beliefs as opposed to the greater good of the project. Short tempered. · XP · 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose In the questions, he shows dishonesty, pretends not to know what homeland security is (when he said he worked there and everyone in the USA knows what it is), then makes a joke about it by the standard military denial procedures--he later claimed never to have worked for the military, then falsely claims USDHS is not homeland security, when proven wrong he claims not to work there which give dates that conflict the dates he said he worked there and it's unlikely he'd quit right after he made that statement. Also his answer to "Question from Sugaar" was hypocritical. Also MONGO always gets too personally involved in things (see his first request for comment and his request for arbitration) so would be unlikely to recuse himself if he had personal bias in an arbitration issue. (let's assume new paragraph) He also constantly feeds trolls instead of ignoring them. Before he came to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article, there was almost no trolling there--just stuff easily ignored and things other admins quickly fixed. But MONGO comes in and provokes the trolls, bans innocent people, and basically creates massive disruption and ever since there's been nothing but disruption stemming from this. Anomo 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose, past interactions not too pleasant, unsure if MONGO is capable of a much larger role here. - SpL o T _{(* T* C+ u+ g+ v)} 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
57. -- Conti| ✉ 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose -- BostonMA ^talk 18:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
59. oppose because arbcom members need to be right and this user is too often wrong, in my experience and opinion. User:Pedant 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
60. oppose user has to be able to get along with fellow editors better first.-- danntm ^T _C 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose controversial and too often involved in conflict. Eluchil404 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose Shows to much WP:POV and some WP:OWN. " Snorkel | Talk" 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose He is emotional and brusque, both qualities that, in my opinion, do not mesh with my view of an able arbitrator. Mattisse (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose ITAQALLAH 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose -- Howrealisreal 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose David D. (Talk) 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Strong Oppose - While I don't question Mongo's status and ability as an administrator, over the course of his stay here he has demonstrated some qualities that while forgivable in an administrator, are not something we, or I at least, want in an Arbitrator. Arbitrators are expected to act in an objective manner, and Mongo's frequent clashes with uses have shown him to be anything but objective. As well, I firmly believe anyone subject to Arbitration remedies should not be considered for Abitrator. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{( Talk to Me) ( My Contributions) ( Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose takes matters too personally RFerreira 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
70. — Pilotguy ( push to talk) 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Involvment in too many negative situations. reply
71. Michael Snow 23:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    Trouble! Stompin' Tom 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Stompin' Tom does not have suffrage; he registered at 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

72. — Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose: I question this editor's judgment. Friday (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
74. -- Watermint 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose per XP, Anomo and others. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose. -- Pkchan 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose. Silensor 06:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose. I would feel very uncomfortable having this user on Arbcom. Sorry. Luna Santin 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose per Wizardry Dragon et all. Utterly enable to keep WP:COOL. Duja ► 08:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose. Mongo is often praised for his BS detector, which is essentially a bad faith detector. But how accurate is his sense of BS? Some might say that no BS ever gets by him. But since the null hypothesis is WP:AGF the interesting statistical error is that of false positives, i.e., cases where Mongo incorrectly rejects the hypothesis of good faith (calling BS where no BS is involved). This is especially important given the rhetorical and administrative license his verdict of BS seems to imply for him. Mongo is clearly more interested in punishing the guilty than protecting the innocent. He is more interested in the omelette than the eggs.-- Thomas Basboll 08:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose Dragomiloff 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose Mexcellent 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose Has record of incivility, too many conflicts with other users, an unsuitable candidate for this position Raemie 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose, controversial Advanced 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Withdrawing...thanks to all that have taken the time to respond. The community has spoken.-- MONGO 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply