(Closed, but still taking questions) |
|||
Line 330: | Line 330: | ||
:Are you going to address the comment apparently approving of encouraging gays to "off themselves?" When I got to that one I stopped looking because I was just floored. Even the other ''CU posters'' in that thread were telling you had gone too far. I have to say I agree. That was chilling, just chilling. ←[[User talk:BenB4|Ben<sup>B4</sup>]] 18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) |
:Are you going to address the comment apparently approving of encouraging gays to "off themselves?" When I got to that one I stopped looking because I was just floored. Even the other ''CU posters'' in that thread were telling you had gone too far. I have to say I agree. That was chilling, just chilling. ←[[User talk:BenB4|Ben<sup>B4</sup>]] 18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:: I can't seem to load CU right now, but if I recall correctly, one CUer was accusing another CUer of advocating the murder of gays. I was pointing out, and correctly so, that the member was not advocating murder, he was at the strongest advocating that they commit suicide. I don't believe that anywhere in that thread do I express agreement with that sentiment, and I do not believe that I was the target of any criticism in that thread. The person who advocated the suicide was. It may be hair splitting to you, but I see a distinction between advocating murder, and saying "why don't you just off yourself?". If someone makes an inaccurate characterization about what someone else said, I am one who will try to clarify what was actually said. - [[User:Crockspot|Crockspot]] 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC) |
:: I can't seem to load CU right now, but if I recall correctly, one CUer was accusing another CUer of advocating the murder of gays. I was pointing out, and correctly so, that the member was not advocating murder, he was at the strongest advocating that they commit suicide. I don't believe that anywhere in that thread do I express agreement with that sentiment, and I do not believe that I was the target of any criticism in that thread. The person who advocated the suicide was. It may be hair splitting to you, but I see a distinction between advocating murder, and saying "why don't you just off yourself?". If someone makes an inaccurate characterization about what someone else said, I am one who will try to clarify what was actually said. - [[User:Crockspot|Crockspot]] 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Closed, but still taking questions == |
|||
The RfA is closed, and obviously no one can change their !vote, but I have to "live" in this community, so if there is anything else specific I can clear up, please ask away. I will try to check in throughout the afternoon, definitely this evening. - [[User:Crockspot|Crockspot]] 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:03, 16 August 2007
Crockspot's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 18:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC):
User:Crockspot run at Thu Aug 9 18:09:46 2007 GMT Category talk: 1 Category: 3 Image talk: 1 Image: 1 Mainspace 2051 Talk: 1384 Template talk: 2 Template: 5 User talk: 1281 User: 270 Wikipedia talk: 214 Wikipedia: 978 avg edits per page 3.82 earliest 20:34, 8 May 2006 number of unique pages 1621 total 6191
Responses to Goethean's oppose
Moved from the main page.--Chaser - T 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
After the other admin removed it, did you put it back? Okay, thanks.--MONGO 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks
- Just as I thought, you cannot defend your actions. — goethean ॐ 21:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Gee...lookie here..you weren't supported then, what makes you think anything has changed?--MONGO 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for that link, MONGO. It brings us back to the problem at hand --- abusive administrators. However, you have still neglected to substantiate your repeated claim that I have attacked you. How does linking to one of your own comments constitute a personal attack on you? — goethean ॐ 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see, so you're allowed to use userspace to attack people? Much as you were doing here? And removing these attacks is an example of administrative abuse? Wow...are we on the same website?--MONGO 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- This thread has less to do with the candidate and more to do with re-hashing an old dispute between others. Please move it to the talk page or (even better) just stop.--Chaser - T 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, Chaser. However, MONGO has again accused me of attacking him without substantiating his accusation, so I will defend myself. MONGO, how does linking to your own comments constitute an attack on you? — goethean ॐ 21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you completely incapable of understanding that attacking people in your userspace is wrong? How many admins and editors have to explain this to you..as was done at AN/I and a month before that when your attack page was put up for deletion by me. There never was admin abuse by removing and warning you not to violate our no personal attacks policy. If you don't understand that, then I suggest you read the policies and guidelines.--MONGO 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, Chaser. However, MONGO has again accused me of attacking him without substantiating his accusation, so I will defend myself. MONGO, how does linking to your own comments constitute an attack on you? — goethean ॐ 21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- This thread has less to do with the candidate and more to do with re-hashing an old dispute between others. Please move it to the talk page or (even better) just stop.--Chaser - T 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see, so you're allowed to use userspace to attack people? Much as you were doing here? And removing these attacks is an example of administrative abuse? Wow...are we on the same website?--MONGO 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for that link, MONGO. It brings us back to the problem at hand --- abusive administrators. However, you have still neglected to substantiate your repeated claim that I have attacked you. How does linking to one of your own comments constitute a personal attack on you? — goethean ॐ 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Gee...lookie here..you weren't supported then, what makes you think anything has changed?--MONGO 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- May I suggest WP:DISPUTE for both of you? I don't know what's going on between you two, and I will not dig myself into it, but this kind of thing is why we have the aforementioned link. -WarthogDemon 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Normally a good idea, that probably won't work in this instance, WarthogDemon. There is Ancient History here, rivaling that of Egypt - and darn near as full of dead bodies, too. Goethean, why don't you just drop this? Your obsession with MONGO does not help the project nor enhance your reputation. MONGO, I realize this is difficult for you, but have you considered simply ignoring Goethean? He might eventually give up if you don't respond. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Goethean was trolling then and he's trolling now. I don't think they need to take this to dispute. I think Goethean needs a warning on his page--he always does this crap.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that is what I said, only I was trying to be more delicate - not to mention I really liked the Egypt reference. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the Egypt refrence--I liked it too. Though I think a Nordic Fairy Tales refrence comes in a close second.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that is what I said, only I was trying to be more delicate - not to mention I really liked the Egypt reference. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- MONGO jumped on my "oppose" vote and immediately accused me of attacking him, apparently in an effort to nullify my opinion. It was he who brought up the incident, in which you and he bullied me into removing a link to one of MONGO's comments from my userpage. I replied by pointing out that I had never attacked him. And he continued to accuse me in each of his subsequent comments, never substantiating his (false) claims. Why do you say that I should drop it when it is he who accuses me of attacking him and then evades when called on it? — goethean ॐ 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Starting to feel like AN/I, MONGO makes an accusation, person defends, admins tell them to stop picking on MONGO. Just let it rest, most rational people know you were right, you know you were right. There exists a group of people who feel MONGO is always under attack and as such will defend him at all costs, its becoming part of Wikipedia, the community culling MONGO. The page is about Crockspot and we should try our hardest not to be pulled from the topic. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Questions about Crockspots homophobic statements on 'Conservative Underground'
More uestions from Bmedley Sutler
- 15. I saw on your home Wikipedia userpage that you are a member of a group called Conservative Underground, so I went there. It is a disturbing site with a lot of hate, against many groups but mostly Gays and Liberals, IMO. I looked at some of your posts. I fear that you maybe aren't right to be an administrator when you make homophobic claims like : "Pretty much any dude with "bear" in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass." Link. Could you explain that claim a little more? Isn't that pretty homophobic? And this one "I've noticed what seemed like an organized, or at least coincidentally coordinated, effort on Wikipedia to scrub any citations of Bill O'Reilly criticizing liberals. They pull every possible justification for it out of their asses, like "O'Reilly not a notable person", "spam links", "O'Reilly is not a reliable source, neither is Fox News.", etc. ad nauseum." Is that a canvassing? The O'Reilly Soros thing was one of your biggest battles Link Another thread called "Fags and Firearms" that you posted in is full of homophobic hate. Is that the sort of NPOV we need from an administrator? Will you keep posting homophobic hate there if you become an administrator? Is your possible homophobia the reason you have fighted so hard to keep claims of homosexuality from the Matt Drudge article? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 05:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I posted this on the main board and someone removed it. It's important to me. He brags on his user home page that he is a member on Conservative Underground with the same name, so he must know that people will look to see what he posts on that site if he is fit. Please answer my concerns Crockspots. Thanks. Bmedley Sutler 06:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to see what bearing this has on whether or not I will abuse the admin tools. - Crockspot 06:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Such bigoted, hateful comments are an affront to common decency and bring disrepute upon the project. ←BenB4 09:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- For some odd reason, Crockspot's conservativeunderground.com website has gone offline, thereby effectively stopping us from seeing his comments there. I find this a little suspicious, but I am suspicious by nature. Skopp 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's the Full Context of the "Alleged Homophobic" Remarks
I think everyone should take a look at what Crockspot posted on Aldebaer's talk page after this individual took Crockspot's off-wiki comments personally. It contains the full context of these so called "homophobic" remarks:
I'm sorry if you took that off-wiki remark personally. Maybe if you had been there in context, you might have seen the humor in it. We were commenting on a picture thread on DU, and one of the DUer's name of MeegerBear I believe, posted a picture of himself in leather ass chaps, cap and vest, you know the whole Polk Street Faire getup. One of the CUers says something along the lines of that guy might be gay. I thought it was funny that he completely lacked any gaydar in this respect, so my comment was more of a "well, yeah". I really do have a lot of dear GLBT friends, and I used to hang out in gay bars a lot when I lived in the Bay Area. (Best dancing anywhere). Anyway, I don't expect this to change your vote, but hopefully you won't think I'm quite so eevil. - Crockspot 18:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I think admins with published statements like
"There were lots of french-canadian DUmmy types interviewed by the news. They were saying stupid shit, and could have come right off the pages of DU. As the night wore on, the idiots started pelting the cops with snowballs, and chasing and threatening individual cops, so the cops beat the shit out of them. It was pretty funny."
(Link) could discredit the whole WP project regarding the NPOV rule. This is the reason why I posted my "Oppose" vote. The sockpuppetry accusation is wrong, so I would be happy to see it removed… Hypotroph 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Another deletion
[1] contains a weird deletion. This one seems accidental; yet, it should be undeleted. Digwuren 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a botched copy-and-paste? Raymond Arritt 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Courtesy blanking
I'm looking over this RfA, and I just can't imagine how this discussion will not haunt the nominee for the rest of his time at Wikipedia. I realize the importance of a full, thorough RfA discussion is critical. And I realize there may be no precedent for it, but I wonder if it might be helpful to courtesy blank the RfA after its completion (assuming the RfA is not successful, which it looks to me like it will not be). This has become (understandably, I'm afraid) an RfC on the nominee's actions at an off-wiki forum, and I'm just not sure what's been said here being immediately available would have any constructive impact on this user's continued editing of Wikipedia. I realize, again, that there may be no precedent for this, and I realize that blanking "should not be performed lightly,"[WP:CBLANK] but I just see nothing good continuing to come from this discussion being handily referenced in editing and other discussions and conflicts involving this user after the RfA is closed. justen 15:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ask him. He's not shy. If he wants it blanked, I'll support blanking. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also second that. -WarthogDemon 15:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Depends on whether some off the cuff remarks at another website=lack of compassion or an ability to remain neutral here if he were to make an administrative action. I am not the least bit convinced that he would, as he stated himself, do anything on Wikipedia admistratively that would lead to him being desyopped.--MONGO 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think it won't do any good, since someone will inevitably bring the same comments up again if he ever has another RFA. But to be honest, I think this meets the criteria for a courtesy blank if he wishes it. I can certainly see some troll using it as personal attack ammunition in the future. VanTucky (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it will be brought up again if he tries for adminship, then I see no reason to hide it. That is of course his call, but not sure we can get the crats to support it. I think they would have the final word on a blanking.--MONGO 16:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think it won't do any good, since someone will inevitably bring the same comments up again if he ever has another RFA. But to be honest, I think this meets the criteria for a courtesy blank if he wishes it. I can certainly see some troll using it as personal attack ammunition in the future. VanTucky (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Once the discussion is closed, there's no reason it can't be courtesy blanked, regardless of outcome. Blanking only hides it from search engines, not from legitimate on wiki enquiries. Of course at another RfA (if this one fails, which it might not) or an RfB or whatever the same issues will be rehashed, that seems unavoidable. Courtesy blanking only hides things from inappropriate uses, not appropriate ones - to be blunt, there's no reason not to do it lightly (though this case may not be light). Cheers, WilyD 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- His contributions on this website are all that matters. He has stated he is married to a black lady and was married to a Jewish lady and that one of his best friends is a lesbian. The fact that his off wiki comments won't be "forgotten" and will be used as leverage against his future work here makes it important that the clarifications he has already provided don't have to be repeated every time someone who opposes his POV wants ot misrepresent him. Again, his off the cuff remarks at another website seem to be part of the usual banter (unfortunately) of that website and condemning him for making those comments and equating them with some likelihood that he will misuse his admin tools here is a poor reason to oppose his adminship.--MONGO 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this is directed at me. I think we all agree this discussion can be courtesy blanked if Crockspot desires when it's closed (whenever that happens, and whatever the outcome). I've already suggested any non-wikipedia activites he engages in shouldn't be considered here, and my own oppose is based mainly on my discomfort with the apparent way he reads consensus and votes. Or am I missing some point? WilyD 16:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not directed at you specifically. I think the crats have the word on a blanking though. Crockspot has made it claer he is not going to withdraw and I see no reason why he should. So further discussion about blanking is premature.--MONGO 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this is directed at me. I think we all agree this discussion can be courtesy blanked if Crockspot desires when it's closed (whenever that happens, and whatever the outcome). I've already suggested any non-wikipedia activites he engages in shouldn't be considered here, and my own oppose is based mainly on my discomfort with the apparent way he reads consensus and votes. Or am I missing some point? WilyD 16:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- His contributions on this website are all that matters. He has stated he is married to a black lady and was married to a Jewish lady and that one of his best friends is a lesbian. The fact that his off wiki comments won't be "forgotten" and will be used as leverage against his future work here makes it important that the clarifications he has already provided don't have to be repeated every time someone who opposes his POV wants ot misrepresent him. Again, his off the cuff remarks at another website seem to be part of the usual banter (unfortunately) of that website and condemning him for making those comments and equating them with some likelihood that he will misuse his admin tools here is a poor reason to oppose his adminship.--MONGO 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I am not withdrawing, and I want everyone to state their view for the record. Let's see how this wraps up first, and I may or may not request a blank at that time. It seems clear that a small group wants to run me off of WP for good. That isn't going to happen. Crockspot may disappear, but I will always be here. - Crockspot 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that there are two opposes who came here and !voted after not editing for two weeks is amusing.--MONGO 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- We just had a user who hadn't contributed since the 8th (and made only four edits so far this month) vote oppose too. Something is to smell starting fishy around here. New England Review Me! 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Have their talk pages been checked for canvassing? Of course, they probably emailed. But it definitely is odd. Have they made any contribs after this? VanTucky (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I expect the final 18 hours of this RfA to get quite interesting, as that is when a certain editor's one week block expires, which resulted from my report to 3RR. (Actually, at least two of their recent blocks were the result of my reports.) Many of these other editors are somewhat associated with that editor. It's one of the reasons I want a full record, and will not pull the plug early. - Crockspot 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- User:Dureo hasn't edited in 10 days, not two weeks, but almost all his recent edits are to RfA. Nothing on his talk page (obviously I can't speak for email) and maybe 500 edits total WilyD 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well Crock, you know I strongly oppose, but if some disgruntled editor has been emailing all his cronies to tilt the scales I will not stand for it.
What is the particular editor's name?I think it would be good for someone who's not a supporter of your RFA to back you up against canvassing or assumption of bad faith. VanTucky (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)- I sent you the username by email. Interestingly, they became active on their talk page just yesterday, after laying low for a few days. Timing seems to coincide with the barrage of opposes. I appreciate your looking at this, even though you oppose. It shows true integrity. - Crockspot 17:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well Crock, you know I strongly oppose, but if some disgruntled editor has been emailing all his cronies to tilt the scales I will not stand for it.
- User:BernardL has been dormant for twelve days - it's a little odd, very active up until then - obviously familiar with Crockspot through State Terrorism by the United States. WilyD 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- User:Dureo hasn't edited in 10 days, not two weeks, but almost all his recent edits are to RfA. Nothing on his talk page (obviously I can't speak for email) and maybe 500 edits total WilyD 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I expect the final 18 hours of this RfA to get quite interesting, as that is when a certain editor's one week block expires, which resulted from my report to 3RR. (Actually, at least two of their recent blocks were the result of my reports.) Many of these other editors are somewhat associated with that editor. It's one of the reasons I want a full record, and will not pull the plug early. - Crockspot 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Have their talk pages been checked for canvassing? Of course, they probably emailed. But it definitely is odd. Have they made any contribs after this? VanTucky (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- We just had a user who hadn't contributed since the 8th (and made only four edits so far this month) vote oppose too. Something is to smell starting fishy around here. New England Review Me! 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I not sure what the calls to arms is about. Many people probably poke in on Wikipedia now and then without making edits. I check the Wiki 2x a day at least, when not editing. Request for Adminship is suppose to be the communities opinions, that includes people who do not every day, or those who take vacations etc. There really should not be a surprise that editors who Crockspot has had interaction with, became aware that he is running for admin, who else should comment here? Only the people who had positive interactions, certainly defeats the point. However, I do oppose canvassing, on-wiki and off. However that does not seem to be the case, there are editors who have made 4 edits in the last week that !vote "support" that no one is tagging their posts with "limited recent participation" --SevenOfDiamonds 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to banned editors resurfacing under new usernames.--MONGO 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I know, hence all your failed RFCU's. I am oppose to chest beating internet-bullies. Anyone else want to say what they oppose? Perhaps someone opposes cats with stripes? --SevenOfDiamonds 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, a checkuser has never been run on User:TheDeciderDecides. As soon as I get a good excuse to request one, the results should be quite illuminating. - Crockspot 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I make you a deal, I will support it being ran, and if it comes back false, you withdraw. Deal? PS This will be the 5th or so accusation since I started editing. If I was a previous editor, and not just a master at the mysterious art of Wiki markup, the last 4 RFCU's would have stated so. You ever think perhaps, opposing people via attacks, is what has lead to 30+ people opposing? --SevenOfDiamonds 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't insinuating that you were a sock of TDD. The editor I believe is the master of that puppet has yet to appear in this RfA. But they will. You can count on it. - Crockspot 18:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- The diffs are easy to recognize if one knows what to look for. Checkuser isn't needed by experienced people to ID socks and ban evaders.--MONGO 17:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- So easy to recognize you have been proven wrong ... good one. Go bark up another tree, your boring me. Don't you have a userpage to complain about? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, mine. VanTucky (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, talk about wikistalking huh.--MONGO 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, huh. Now that you have effectively trolled in an attempt to engage in ad hominems, are you done? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, please confine yourself to the topic at hand, eh? Is Crockspot can gather the evidence he needs for a checkuser, let's have one done and see what comes up. If he needs help finding this evidence, let's help him. In the meantime, let's just accept that this is already a contentious RfA, and there's no reason to make the environment more toxic. WilyD 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently Crockspot was not referring to me after all. I do agree though, some people can't help but rehash their issues everywhere they go. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, please confine yourself to the topic at hand, eh? Is Crockspot can gather the evidence he needs for a checkuser, let's have one done and see what comes up. If he needs help finding this evidence, let's help him. In the meantime, let's just accept that this is already a contentious RfA, and there's no reason to make the environment more toxic. WilyD 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, huh. Now that you have effectively trolled in an attempt to engage in ad hominems, are you done? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, talk about wikistalking huh.--MONGO 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, mine. VanTucky (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- So easy to recognize you have been proven wrong ... good one. Go bark up another tree, your boring me. Don't you have a userpage to complain about? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I make you a deal, I will support it being ran, and if it comes back false, you withdraw. Deal? PS This will be the 5th or so accusation since I started editing. If I was a previous editor, and not just a master at the mysterious art of Wiki markup, the last 4 RFCU's would have stated so. You ever think perhaps, opposing people via attacks, is what has lead to 30+ people opposing? --SevenOfDiamonds 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, a checkuser has never been run on User:TheDeciderDecides. As soon as I get a good excuse to request one, the results should be quite illuminating. - Crockspot 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I know, hence all your failed RFCU's. I am oppose to chest beating internet-bullies. Anyone else want to say what they oppose? Perhaps someone opposes cats with stripes? --SevenOfDiamonds 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out the timestamp of the first email list message regarding this RfA: Tue Aug 14 10:26:15 UTC 2007. The second or third reply also mentions the possibility of canvassing, so I don't think the email list generated some of the responses that are troubling. - Crockspot 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- If Crockspot decides that he'd like to have this blanked, a sensible compromise between transparency and privacy might be to have it blanked until such time as he opens a future RFA/RFB, and then un-blank it solely for the duration of that RFA/RFB. Thoughts? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I also want to note that some traffic might be coming here from ANI (that's how I found the page). A thread was started there at "09:37, 14 August 2007". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"Inactive" voters
I find myself annoyed that several of those opposing this candidacy have been tagged as having recent relative inactivity:
- BernardL (talk · contribs) "First edit by this editor in two weeks[2]"
- Dureo (talk · contribs) "First edit by this editor in two weeks[3]"
- MonsterShouter (talk · contribs) "Limited recent editing history [4]"
- HiDrNick (talk · contribs) "First edit in two weeks[5]"
It's worth noting that a similar tactic could show that some supporters—for two examples, PTR (talk · contribs) (8 days off) & RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs) (3 edits in prior 9 days)—could be similarly tagged. I would oppose such tagging, as it has no obvious relevance to any closing decision—there are plenty of valid reasons to have little-to-no recent activity aside from this RfA. These aren't clear {{spa}}s, so if there's any evidence of something inappropriate going on, then by all means share; in the absence of anything, vague allusions in an attempt to seemingly discredit or discount the input of 4 opposers is, in my opinion, inappropriate. — Scientizzle 21:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- In the interest of fairness, I was inactive for a few weeks until yesterday (I was on vacation), but I have been highly active since I came back. New England Review Me! 21:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey! I'm active when life permits. --PTR 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Stupid question, would I count as inactive? I was pretty absent February through June of this year. -WarthogDemon 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- And granted come July I broke my own record of most edits in a month. Though I'd still like to know if I'd be considered inactive or not. In fact later this month I may start making not quite so many edits as I have these past 2 months. -WarthogDemon 21:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- No. IMHO, To qualify as inactive in this context you need to have not made any contributions for at least a week before your vote, and made few (if any) since. New England Review Me! 21:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- And granted come July I broke my own record of most edits in a month. Though I'd still like to know if I'd be considered inactive or not. In fact later this month I may start making not quite so many edits as I have these past 2 months. -WarthogDemon 21:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Stupid question, would I count as inactive? I was pretty absent February through June of this year. -WarthogDemon 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey! I'm active when life permits. --PTR 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you're all getting my point (and I do appreciate levity, especially when the mood of this RfA is kinda sour). It is, to me, a seemingly unnecessary attempt at poisoning the well... — Scientizzle 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I was irritated by these tags as well. Ultimately they are probably working against the candidate rather than for him. Personally, I got back from a week's holiday not long before participating here. So what? If there is evidence of canvassing, sockpuppetry, or anything else irregular, let's see it. If not, these additions are unhelpful and may add to the impression that the candidate has chosen their nominator rather unwisely. I hope that it won't influence anybody either way; I certainly tried extra hard to give Crockspot a fair chance in spite of the nominator's tactics. --John 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mind seeing the tags there. But I do think the nominator should have tagged all users who fell under his criteria, and not just the opposers who did. New England Review Me! 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fine with them being there, doesn't bother me, MONGO appears paranoid, and fails to AGF, but that is his shortfall not mine. I was in LA for a week and a half on vacation, and just back to work Monday,(hence the accidental ip edit I made earlier this month from LA) I became interested in this RFA because of the thread at ANI, and I assume that brought some others in also, it was busy at work Monday night and I didn't get much further than that, I generally start with ANI and work through RFA and checking Recent changes, so you can see how that worked out. (btw this edit is from home! you know if MONGO decides to go for that RFCU) Dureo 14:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mind seeing the tags there. But I do think the nominator should have tagged all users who fell under his criteria, and not just the opposers who did. New England Review Me! 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not an inactive user, I check my watchlist every day. Further, this RFA made news far and wide, I popped in to vote by way of an RSS feed link. (I forget which one, though.) I have been editing Wikipedia since May of this year, not sure how Mr. Mongo missed that. MonsterShouter 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can tag me for inactivity if I go more than 13 hours without a post. Edison 20:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Misusing the project
Stupid. People could have condemned those remarks, but observed there was no indication Crockspot was here to do anything but write a neutral encyclopedia. That would have looked magnanimous, and yet he would have known that his admin actions would be watched for bias. We'd have had a known conservative who would have taken special care to be and seem fair. Instead, people used the RfA as a platform to sanctimoniously proclaim their disgust with homophobia. People will see Crockspot's nomination sunk because of his politics, and they will make sure it doesn't happen to them. To survive the opposition research, people will pick a name, do a lot of RC patrol, and describe themselves as slightly-left-of-center agnostics, sympathetic to libertarianism and the moral teachings of Jesus and Ghandi. Guess what - if only people who share your commitment to social justice can be admins, then you are misusing the project to advance your agenda. Tom Harrison Talk 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't voted, since my interaction with Crockspot has been minimal, but while it would be wrong to judge an admin candidate on the basis of their political views, it is certainly appropriate to take issue with the 'actions' of a candidate when they appear to be intentionally combative, prejudicial or divisive.
- I won't go so far as to describe anyone's comments here (including Crockspot's offline comments about gay people) as such - but pointing out the past behavior of a potential admin is a necessary part of evaluating whether candidates are likely to advance or disrupt the project. In this case, I think the WP community is better served by knowing a candidate's views - and if candidates were to intentionally misrepresent themselves as you suggest rather than taking responsibility for their behavior, the need for such knowledge would increase greatly. Hopefully the goal of candidates is not a 'power grab' that would necessitate such deceptiveness... since after all, it's just a mop and bucket.
- And if it's just a mop and bucket, and not a 'power grab' that's sought by candidates, adminship should really have little appeal to those with 'political' motives. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Precisely...Crockspot has chosen to edit articles that he knows will attract opposition to his viewpoints. His comments on CU, while not the least bit acceptable, were made there, not here. He has clarified that his real life situation is not the least bit homophobic or racist, yet others deride those claims essentially as lies or backpedalling. The fact that we have a number of minimally active editors and at least one banned editor who is evading his ban who have come here to oppose him, demostrates the ugly partisanship that this website is embroiled in. Is there evidence that Crockspot would abuse admin tools by anything that he has done on this website...no, I do not see it. Exactly, so the advice we need to tell Crockspot is...if you want to be an admin, you must abandon editing in a right of center manner, do a lot of vandalism reversion and hang out at IRC, chit-chatting and making friends, letting them know you not the evil Bush loving, gun toting, ultra Nationalist American, homophobic, racist bigot some people claim you are...all based on a few stupid comments he made on some other website.--MONGO 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree with your characterization that WP is 'embroiled in ugly partisanship'. The claim that one is 'editing in a right-of-center-manner' should be irrelevant. Assigning a 'left-right' axis to issues isn't at all productive and isn't a holistic view of Wikipedia... it's another kind of 'agenda-bringing' in and of itself. 'left-right' is a self-chosen partisan evaluation and since the body of knowledge doesn't necessarily fall along such an axis, any good admin should be able to divorce himself from 'left-of-center' and 'right-of-center' mindsets in favor of a 'pro-WP' and 'anti-WP' mindset. Rather than 'ugly partisanship', maybe 'relentless partisanship', the insistence by so many on framing every dispute or issue along partisan lines, rather than objective WP policy, is the true problem here. Partisan viewpoints are, by nature, divisive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any chance that Crockspot would allow his politics to interfere with making good admin actions. However, if we are expecting admins to be without bias, then we might as well desysop them all, right now.--MONGO 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- No one is without bias. No one is suggesting they must be. However admins (and indeed, good editors) must make very effort to act as if they are unbiased if they expect to be productive, rather than disruptive, influences. Whether Crockspot is capable of such objectivity is, as I see it, the core of the debate here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any chance that Crockspot would allow his politics to interfere with making good admin actions. However, if we are expecting admins to be without bias, then we might as well desysop them all, right now.--MONGO 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree with your characterization that WP is 'embroiled in ugly partisanship'. The claim that one is 'editing in a right-of-center-manner' should be irrelevant. Assigning a 'left-right' axis to issues isn't at all productive and isn't a holistic view of Wikipedia... it's another kind of 'agenda-bringing' in and of itself. 'left-right' is a self-chosen partisan evaluation and since the body of knowledge doesn't necessarily fall along such an axis, any good admin should be able to divorce himself from 'left-of-center' and 'right-of-center' mindsets in favor of a 'pro-WP' and 'anti-WP' mindset. Rather than 'ugly partisanship', maybe 'relentless partisanship', the insistence by so many on framing every dispute or issue along partisan lines, rather than objective WP policy, is the true problem here. Partisan viewpoints are, by nature, divisive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I weighed in long before the homophobia dust-up because I saw biased edits. I sure wouldn't have done any further research on his comments if tbeatty hadn't blanked the original question about the 'bear' comment -- twice. ←BenB4 23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Off-wiki canvassing?
The WR discussion is already known about, but someone emailed me this one as well. http://mashable.com/2007/08/14/wikiscanner/ - Crockspot 12:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
em? What's the connection? that allows you to track IP edits - what's the connection with this RFA? --Fredrick day 12:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Scroll down and read the comments section. That message was a call to arms, and was posted, judging by the comment, when things were "going well". - Crockspot 12:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah now I see what you are getting at. --Fredrick day 12:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly enough the only new accounts or IPs, has both voted support. Its good see canvassing fail, in either direction. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, let's see, the vote was 71-9, and then all of a sudden the oppose votes are piled on; 75-59 at last count. Alot of readers of bulletin boards and blogs have wiki accounts in good standing, so I don't buy your argument. This is an outrage that the process could be corrupted like this, especially since canvassing is screwing a genuinely good editor.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is pretty common - as RFAs go on, new evidence is found, new cases are made and results can swing sharply towards oppose. That this case is being discussed in several places (including AN/I and the ENwiki-L) will result in more eyes - but more eyes should always be a good thing. The opposes are not exactly spurious, and they're not exactly made by suspect users - the only apparent outcome of canvassing has been one support. Complain if you want, but the outcome appears to be coming from process. And Crockspot's alledged supporters are doing anything but by flinging accusations around wildly. WilyD 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, let's see, the vote was 71-9, and then all of a sudden the oppose votes are piled on; 75-59 at last count. Alot of readers of bulletin boards and blogs have wiki accounts in good standing, so I don't buy your argument. This is an outrage that the process could be corrupted like this, especially since canvassing is screwing a genuinely good editor.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly enough the only new accounts or IPs, has both voted support. Its good see canvassing fail, in either direction. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another instance of canvassing is at blog.wired.com under "Conservatives trying to take Wikipedia Over!!" and later under "Conservative Cockroaches." Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Once a Wikipedia admin canidate's history of making homophobic and racist comments (see their admitted postings on Conservative Underground) it was inevitable for the wider media to take notice. However B'cats should take note that as of this time all 58 "Opposes" are editors in good standing, with long histories of contributions to Wikipedia. Whether or not the real world notices Wikipedia process is irrelevant; why shouldn't they? We have as Wikipedians no special rights beyond what anyone else has on the Internet. All our actions are be design MORE transparent than the wider Internet because of the GFDL here. If 10 or 1,001 blogs make note of Crockspot's offensive comments, it has no bearing on the standing Oppose votes of users in good standing. They are eligible and qualified to say they do not trust the user with the tools, and come here to voice the opinion. 84.56.95.38 13:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The WR thread is not an attempt at canvassing - WR discusses wikipedia, and this RfA is a notable event on wiki - particularly because it can be seen as bad for wikipedia. ViridaeTalk 13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- The WR thread is talking about a voting-in-progress and getting people riled up. If they were talking about it after the voting actually happened, it would be more of what you describe. Further, we have baseless accusations being spread about MONGO over there, further riling these people up.
- And I think it's pretty funny that you forgot to mention the blatant canvassing on these blogs. Who knows what else is out there? Who knows just how many emails have been sent? All we know for sure is that Crockspot was 71-9 one day, then 75-59 after this garbage appeared--and you want to talk about what can be seen as bad for wikipedia.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- But it still does not get around the fact that most of the people voting are editors in good standing. I saw the matter raised on the bLP pages and headed over - how many editors who have !voted can we connect to those blogs? - I see plenty of "solid" names saying no thanks - are all those people the result of offsite canvessing? I don't believe that to be the case. --Fredrick day 14:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's the problem--we don't know how many of these people read these blogs and BB's. There's no way to know. All we know is that there have been some shady intentions here--and who knows what else has happened? Based on these off-wiki comments, I'm sure that emailings have been sent out--just like they're baselessly accusing MONGO of. I think every single opposition vote should be held in question and if these 'solid' names are as solid as you suggest, they'll retract their vote in light of these shady off-wiki activities.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- So people came over here from the BLPN, but no one has bothered to remove or refactor the slanderous characterizations in my RfA? I am being harmed. But still, I soldier on. - Crockspot 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- well if you think that is the case, head over to the BLP board and ask for them to be removed or head over to AN/I and ask for the same but with comments like "But still, I soldier on.", it sounds like you perfer to wear a hairshirt about the matter. --Fredrick day 14:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, at least I didn't pull out a "slings and arrows" remark. The issue has already been reported by others on both boards. - Crockspot 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- well if you think that is the case, head over to the BLP board and ask for them to be removed or head over to AN/I and ask for the same but with comments like "But still, I soldier on.", it sounds like you perfer to wear a hairshirt about the matter. --Fredrick day 14:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- So people came over here from the BLPN, but no one has bothered to remove or refactor the slanderous characterizations in my RfA? I am being harmed. But still, I soldier on. - Crockspot 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's the problem--we don't know how many of these people read these blogs and BB's. There's no way to know. All we know is that there have been some shady intentions here--and who knows what else has happened? Based on these off-wiki comments, I'm sure that emailings have been sent out--just like they're baselessly accusing MONGO of. I think every single opposition vote should be held in question and if these 'solid' names are as solid as you suggest, they'll retract their vote in light of these shady off-wiki activities.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- But it still does not get around the fact that most of the people voting are editors in good standing. I saw the matter raised on the bLP pages and headed over - how many editors who have !voted can we connect to those blogs? - I see plenty of "solid" names saying no thanks - are all those people the result of offsite canvessing? I don't believe that to be the case. --Fredrick day 14:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The WR one is in my opinion clearly not canvassing - or at least no more than usually comes from WR. Most of the contributors, and paticuarly the detractors there are banned anyway. ViridaeTalk 14:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are comments by someone calling himself "vectorsector" at mashable.com and on digg.com. The comments invite people to come and vote against crockspot. I wonder who Digg user "vectorsector" is. Tom Harrison Talk 16:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Killing them???
- "I might take this charge more seriously if the community had shown the same concern about Seabhcan doing actual canvassing on the PrisonPlanet forums, a forum that has stated the intention of disrupting Wikipedia, outing the real identities of WP editors, and killing them."
- !!!Excuse me? Who's doing the 'killing'? ... Seabhcan 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think "killing" refers to a death threat against me posted at one of the prisonplanet.com forums. Tom Harrison Talk 16:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously not by Seabhcan as he was attempting to get people not to break Wikipedia rules. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly not by me. Now thats clear, I'm off. I have no further interest in this RfA. ... Seabhcan 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously not by Seabhcan as he was attempting to get people not to break Wikipedia rules. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think "killing" refers to a death threat against me posted at one of the prisonplanet.com forums. Tom Harrison Talk 16:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly enough until this morning, as I noted previously, the only IP's and new users were voting support. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- !!!Excuse me? Who's doing the 'killing'? ... Seabhcan 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The direction in which this is going
I believe that Crockspot's intentions are good, but suggest withdrawl to avoid an inevitable blood bath. Why have half-inactive accounts been drawn in to the discussion? It's obvious: because controversy draws people. It doesn't always draw nice people. GracenotesT § 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- If this RfA closes early, it will not be by my hand. I deserve due process, and I will not run away because of slanderous trolls. - Crockspot 16:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- How have you been slandered? ←BenB4 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not get into that discussion. I think Crock has made his wishes clear, and hopefully this mess can continue without the outside interference (now that it's been semiprotected) until it runs its course. VanTucky (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protection is a good idea; it takes care of most forum/blog-action-alert concerns. *sigh* This is too familiar. Good luck getting everything worked out, people. GracenotesT § 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not get into that discussion. I think Crock has made his wishes clear, and hopefully this mess can continue without the outside interference (now that it's been semiprotected) until it runs its course. VanTucky (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the evidence I was waiting for
Since there is no evidence verifying my statement re User:Eleemosynary's direct involvement, I am striking it. See ANI for further comments. - Crockspot 05:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Look what we have here, off wiki canvassing. If you click on the author's name "vectorsector", look who pops up, Eleemosynary, who is currently serving a block for 3RR and continued disruption, thanks to my report on 3RR. (Actually, I am responsible for at least two of his most recent blocks). His block has not even expired yet, (should expire tonight), yet here he is disrupting Wikipedia. Shameful. He should have his block extended indefinitely. Would someone like to report this to ANI, or should I? - Crockspot 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I can imagine the firestorm of outraged indignation that would provoke.There's probably little point in asking anyone for help with it. I have asked Eleemosynary directly on his talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, let me get this perfectly straight, you expect an administrator to block another user indefinitely over their behaviour off-wiki ? Nick 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Considering the account was made today, its questionable. I would ask them as well, since it could have just as easily been done by someone attempting to make them look bad. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Canvassing to disrupt Wikipedia is one of the few off-wiki reasons to block. And who would know to make Eleem look bad? Eleemosynary has not even participated (at least logged in) here, nor do I believe has his name even been brought up. Unless you're suggesting that I did it. - Crockspot 16:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do not make unfounded accusations. I am noting that an account was created on a site just today, that anyone can register under any name. Similar to the posts on PrisonPlanet from "MONGO", however not actually from the MONGO that posts on Wikipedia. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also posted at radar.oreilly.com under "Save Wikipedia". Tom Harrison Talk 17:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is what Bmedley was referring to when he made the following comment at AN/I...[6] "I'm the one laughing. You seem angry and you are your friends will be getting much angrier in the next days! See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA Bmedley Sutler 09:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)"--MONGO 17:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure how this got twisted so much, but I was the one who caught some idiot from Department of Defence vandalizing Talk:Waterboarding, not Bmedley who has claimed credit in numerous edits for catching this specific DoD edit. Note I said vandalizing, not the propaganda they undoubtedly also do. I've abandoned this editing account (right to disappear), but a few people here know what I now edit under. That said, Bmedley should not be getting slagged off by everyone about wearing a foil hat... . As to this instance which has been misrepresented, it was by User_talk:214.13.114.254 DIFF 00:04, 5 November 2006. Rcnet 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
All very regrettable. It is necessary to point out, however, that these external posts in Digg and Radar O'Reilly are timestamped well after the initial allegations of off-wiki canvassing. After that accusation had been made, it really doesn't matter anymore. Risker 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It does matter if a user who is serving a block for disruption shows the clear intent to continue to disrupt while blocked. I have no delusions about it affecting the outcome of this RfA, but I do expect something to be done about the user. Just look at his block log. Disruption, edit warring, legal threats, obviously this user doesn't learn from the carrot OR the stick. - Crockspot 17:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)- I am afraid you have missed my point, Crockspot. While the "evidence" exists that someone canvassed outside of Wikipedia, it shows that the canvassing occurred long after the accusation was made. Frankly, it gives the impression of either (a) someone -possibly Eleemosynary - winding you up or (b) someone with a grudge against either you or Eleemosynary making use of your history of conflict to tar both of you with the same brush. That history is well known, even to people who don't edit the articles involved. Anyone could have created that account. Pursuing this reflects as much on you as it does on the person who hypothetically made the canvassing posts. I encourage you to step away from this toxic pool that has unfortunately threatened to engulf you and your long creditable history here. Risker 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that there has been posts made on various websites is not surprising. It certainly isn't the first time that an Rfa has been broadcast on other websites...it's been under discussion at WR for a couple days now at least. I don't watch any blogs or other related things much, so again, the existence of this Rfa may have been broadcast on other sites prior to the links Tom harrison and Crockspot have found.--MONGO 18:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am afraid you have missed my point, Crockspot. While the "evidence" exists that someone canvassed outside of Wikipedia, it shows that the canvassing occurred long after the accusation was made. Frankly, it gives the impression of either (a) someone -possibly Eleemosynary - winding you up or (b) someone with a grudge against either you or Eleemosynary making use of your history of conflict to tar both of you with the same brush. That history is well known, even to people who don't edit the articles involved. Anyone could have created that account. Pursuing this reflects as much on you as it does on the person who hypothetically made the canvassing posts. I encourage you to step away from this toxic pool that has unfortunately threatened to engulf you and your long creditable history here. Risker 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Eleemosynary is not so stupid. Why would he supply his real Wikipedia user-name if he was going to 'canvass'? Also tell me if the person writing the post asking for canvassing sounds like the same writing as Eleemosynary. It doesn't one tiny bit. Read his long post on Matt Drudge Link at 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (I can't find the exact link) and tell me that it sounds the same as those posts asking for a canvass. They are not the same person IMO. I suspect fakery just like when someone used Mongo's name on another board. Ask yourself what is more possible. Eleemosynary being so stupid as to use his real name in an outright canvass, or somone trying to make him look bad? Look to the editors calling to have him bannd more maybe. Bmedley Sutler 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It read exactly like one of Eleemosynary's screeds to me. His latest block is for edit warring, after he taunted me to report him after he violated 3RR, and then continued edit warring until he was blocked. Does that sound particularly smart to you? Furthermore, I went back to the beginning of Eleemosynary's edit history, and found the IP address he was almost certainly editing under right before he registered his account - 24.18.128.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) . Guess where it resolves back to? Seattle. I have no doubt it was him. - Crockspot 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have never claimed that I am the original discoverer of that BUSHGOV edit to the waterbaording article. Never in the probably 10 times that I have talked about it. Never. I ask the writer to proof that or strike through that. Thank you very much. Kindly, Bmedley Sutler 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot should be made an Admin not a victim of witchhunt
Crockspot has been a gentleman and answered all questions including optional questions which was uncalled and more he was asked more questions than it was required.He or She is only a candidate for Admin in wikipedia.Here his edits have been outstanding and issues should have confined to Wikipedia.Otherwise it shall victory to socks and those opposing people for the views they profess rather than there actions.Let me tell you I do not know him personally or ever edited a page which he has edited.Harlowraman 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Very few people are opposing because of his ideology. And if we make him an admin because there's sockpuppetry to prevent him from being an admin, then sockpuppets are indirectly controlling our actions. Not good. -Amarkov moo! 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- First off, your grammar is atrocious, to say the least. It's somewhat hard to tell what you are saying. However just because there might be socks doesn't mean that people's oppose votes are based on ideology. And I find it somewhat hard to believe that an editor who on another site resorts to hate speech is the true golden boy candidate for this wiki. Either way though, voting "for" someone just because there might be bad "oppose" editors doesn't make a right. David Fuchs (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
We need to keep the debate to Wikipedia
David Fuchs Thank you for your comments on my grammer.I typed hurriedly doing so even now.Anyway I would strive improve it.Thanks for your honest observation.
- 1:If you look down he was asked questions until the 14th August and 18 questions which I did not see other candidates being asked so many questions until the 11th hour.
- 2:If you look there were 4 oppose votes until the 12th .The others started piling up.Sorry if I disagree with you after the campaign in other sites started and questions about offwiki issues.Many are based on his off Wiki views.Starting with the 3rd oppose one .They are opposing on basis of his views.His POV right from question
- 3:The opposition started after this and clearly influenced the vote.I feel it is unfair to Crockspot.
- 4.Almost All editors have some strong POV whether may it be in language,politics,religion,physics,chemistry etc.You are right to edit based on your POV if it backed by reliable sources,without vandalism as is the case with Crockspot.
- 5:Look we are selecting a Editor for the post of Admin.Now this should restricted to conduct,Views in Wikipedia. I feel All issues should be resticted within Wikipedia campaign outside should not be allowed.
- 6: We have many forums here to raise any issues no need to take it outside particularly smear or negative campaigns like the one against crockspot now not making him or her an admin will reward them and encourge further campaigns against others in other forums . Harlowraman 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- If this was just a personal response, you proll'y should have just left me a note on my talk page. Either way, in response:
- 1 People ask questions of controversial candidates, nothing amazing about that.
- 2 As for the pile-on of oppose: obviously this garnered attention, however I think this was less about canvassing off-wiki on the WikiScanner related pages and more about inter-Wiki communication. And I can honestly say I did oppose him primarily for his off-Wiki action, because it was not in the style or spirit I would expect of an admin. People don't act differently two different ways out of pure randomness: they only act two different ways if they know people are watching. That said, it's his off-Wiki actions combined with the diffs on this wiki that suggest to me his personal views will affect his ability to fairly deal with content disputes and such.
- 3 Life is unfair, unfortunately. As Crock has no intention of withdrawing, he's going to have to take what comes.
- 4 Every editor has a point of view, of course. However there is a difference between having a point of view and enforcing it or forcing it upon others and articles.
- 5 Some editors are concerned about this, that its a slippery slope to judging everyone by their off-wiki comments. However when their actions in other parts of the web can be seen to have an influence on Wikipedia, I see no reason why those opinions shouldn't be taken into account- provided as stated above that there is evidence it affects Wikipedia.
- 6 "If we don't do x, the terrorists win" is never a good argument.
-- David Fuchs (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Rcnet
I was just concerned about this...
- Support I despise his politics, abhore many of his personal views, but respect his editing, and admire him for some recent conflict resolution work. I'd refer not to see so many alligations of puppetry by him - however, I am utterly disgusted at the hatchet job being mounted against him. And no, I'm not a puppet, and I'm not here as a result of canvasing. I'm an abandoned account, I invoked my right to dissappear, but I still follow wiki closely and have watched his actions. Wiki needs to break new policy ground in deciding this. Crockspot has done very well in some very hot situations dealing with fighting editors, and has shown incredible restraint given the abuse being dished out. On that measure alone, he has shown patience (compared to the level of aggro) which merits *trust*. I have to WP:AGF. Rcnet 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Rcnet "abandoned" that account about eight months ago, with a total editing time prior to abandonment of about two months. I don't question anyone's right to disappear, but for most Wikipedians, I think that usually means a reappearance under a different username. In any event, I couldn't imagine personally "closely" following Wikipedia for over eight months without involving myself from time to time. I only bring this up on the talk page as I have concerns that a user account would reappear after eight months solely to vote on an RfA. justen 04:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Does that mean a current editor could be resuming an abandoned identity to make a sock/meat (whatever) puppet appearance here? The plot thickens! Someone should check IPs. Skopp 04:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Rcnet has been posting under IP since he abandoned his account, pretty much the same articles as before. He was the first IP supporter in my RfA. Apparently, he wanted his support to count so much that he logged in, for which I am grateful, flattered, and humbled. There is no big mystery. - Crockspot 05:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- He was #20 originally, but I see it's been removed. It was the one where there was back and forth discussion about whether or not the !vote would count. I hope he doesn't mind me outing him like this. He wanted to go on editing anonymously. - Crockspot 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the way it works here is that if an infrequent editor opposes you then that's okay...but the opposite can't possibly be so.--MONGO 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hello pot, this is Kettle --Fredrick day 05:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would consider RCNet to be an established editor, since its been confirmed, or at least noted, that he has been editing all this time under an IP and that he had an account, I feel the !vote should fully count and not be deprecated. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Off-Wiki Cavassing on Crockspot's Rfa now on Prisonplanet.com
If you wonder where some of the meatpuppet opposes are coming from, take a look at the Prisonplanet.com front page, that now lists an article saying "Another Bush Loving Troll About to Become Wikipedia Administrator". MortonDevonshire Yo · 07:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- And also on the Halo comment page of this Prisonplanet.com article about Wikipedia. MortonDevonshire Yo · 07:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Self-admitted racist, homophobic, and anti-Semetic Wikipedia editor... At least the accuracy of anything associated with PrisonPlanet is consistent. I hope they never find out that I eat kittens alive. I stand by my comments about them on Q 13. - Crockspot 12:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have some cats I am looking to get rid of ... --SevenOfDiamonds 12:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I only have one cat, but if you make it suffer it's all yours. Anyway crockspot, you realize you could end the drama if you just withdrew, right? Whether you think it's fair or not, this isn't going to pass, and leaving it open only hurts the project --Lucid 12:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree, however I guess Crockspot cannot fully work on things that need to be fixed without seeing all views. However I am worried about the hostility being manifested here and the AN/I complaints that have come from this RfA. It seems to be detracting too much attention from needed areas and only inviting further trouble. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I only have one cat, but if you make it suffer it's all yours. Anyway crockspot, you realize you could end the drama if you just withdrew, right? Whether you think it's fair or not, this isn't going to pass, and leaving it open only hurts the project --Lucid 12:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have some cats I am looking to get rid of ... --SevenOfDiamonds 12:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Self-admitted racist, homophobic, and anti-Semetic Wikipedia editor... At least the accuracy of anything associated with PrisonPlanet is consistent. I hope they never find out that I eat kittens alive. I stand by my comments about them on Q 13. - Crockspot 12:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The point in keeping it open, as has been explained, is to get everyone "on record." Someone tell me what purpose that can serve. ←BenB4 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- It does tend to clarify exactly what certain people are doing here. — goethean ॐ 13:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- If this is being kept open to gather "evidence" for something, or to later be used against people, then it should certainly close, it also goes to say much about Crockspot if that is indeed the reason it is being kept open. I am going to assume it is not however as I would feel like a fool for paying him a compliment above. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- At this point, whats the difference if it stays open or not. If the candidate wants the final 6 or so hours to play out, let him. New England Review Me! 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- As people use their comments as an opportunity to condemn homophobia, they strengthen their social bonds, and articulate an important point about attitudes that are unacceptable for group membership. To the extent the community forms a consensus about what kinds of speech make one ineligible for administrator, people will know what kinds of speech to avoid, or if past remarks are already posted, that they will need to start here with a different nickname. Further, once this is settled it will save people repeating the arguments in future RfAs. Nominators, anticipating opposition research, will more thoroughly vet their nominees, so something like this will be less likely to happen again. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think there is a degree of acceptance, a point where it is no longer perceived as ignorance of a race or sexual orientation, but becomes hateful. An ignorant remark about actions a homosexual couple may engage in becomes acceptable, people take that to be a cue to educate someone about stereotypes etc. However some of the comments were not taken that way. I posted this elsewhere, but I believe there is a line, at one point do perceived comments become so hateful that they make it difficult to do your job? How is an African American suppose to allow a mediator, who was noted (right or wrongfully) of using such comments as those on the main page, to mediate his dispute? How are they then going to react when someone who was noted, again correctly or not, of that speech sides against them? The status of admin derives from community trust, which comments like those hurt, being proud of participation in a place where you made those comments, or those comments are made regularly, is also detrimental to ones ability to trust. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong No
With an administrator like Crockspot, we'll be seeing more incomplete, citation- deficient entries ranting about "exposing the hypocrisy of the left," such as as Gannon's page which was edited by this candidate.
I also don't think this candidate has contributed enough in the way of balanced articles to merit a responsible position such as administrator. (His current portfolio consists mostly of glorification of military leaders, which is fine, but shows a lack of breadth and a willingness to look at other points of view objectively..) as is shown by the following "slanted" quote in the Gannon entry which was never followed up with a proper citation.
....Gannon stated that this question was not meant to be friendly, but to expose the hypocrisy of the "Left."[citation needed]....
I am new here, and I have already contributed three valuable if controversial pages--- Erich Traub, Edward McSweegan (the history of my contribution was deleted..), and Lyme disease military history.
I have made heaviliy cited (dozens of verified footnotes) contributions the Lyme disease page which were immediately greeted by a flurry of deletions by paid industry insider editors, and I have noticed that there are probably a lot of paid editors here at Wikipedia who are assigned and paid to specifically spin pages and keep valuable information off of wikipedia, meaning that Wiki is progressively becoming viewed as a "spin" machine by many in the college and broader community. This degrades the wiki reputation for variety and balance.... and leads to a lot of understandable bad press.
thanks, freyfaxi
Freyfaxi 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The Gannon article was one of the first articles I edited when I came here, so early arguments I made would not be how I work now. See more recent sourcing upgrades I have done on the Swift Vets article, and talk to the editor EECEE, who disagrees with me, but we have been able to work together there productively. - Crockspot 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfounded racism charges
I would like to address the off-wiki "porch monkey" comment. These charges that I am racist stem from a single remark made on CU. To me, at that time, a porch monkey was a bratty little kid who stands on his mother's porch, and taunts other kids to come and beat him up, while his big brother waits inside the front door. Mr. Scorpio was posting vulgar posts directed at us "cowardly freeper M-Fers" to come to DU and debate him, so he could kick our asses, when he knew that his mom (Skinner) would ban us on sight if we even tried to take him up on the offer. I took a lot of grief from other CU members for using that word, and some wanted me temp banned. The site's owner Robcrook did his own investigation of every one of my posts on that site, and found that I had never made any other remarks that could even be perceived as racist, and I have certainly not since then. So any comments in my RfA that characterize me as a racist, and certainly "admitted racist", are simply ignorant, inaccurate, and show an unwillingness of those editors to look at the facts themselves, rather than jump on the killing floor bandwagon. This can all be confirmed by following the cherry-picked links that were provided, and following through with a little further investigation. See Temp ban on Crockspot?. - Crockspot 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- That link didn't work for me. I personally believe that there is an element of racism within all of us; expressing that racism has to be done very very carefully though, not because racism is bad but because (like profanity) it allows those we disagree with to write our opinions off without listening to the actual point we are trying to make. Although some of the opposition to your candidature seems rather hysterical to me, there are good points there you can learn from if you choose.
- "It can be tough, sometimes, adding stuff that you personally believe to be wrong, but thats what really NPOV editing is." (Rockpocket, via Tyrenius) and "...he never said anything along the lines of, "looking back, I wish I hadn't posted these sorts of things, because they are disrespectful and don't portray the targeted groups in a manner they deserve, nor myself in the way I actually feel." ... is primarily what pushed me to the oppose side, despite initially desiring to support." (Scientizzle) are two that jump out at me as containing good sense.
- Also, if I were you, I would have a word with some of your well-meaning supporters whose tactics on the RfA have probably done you far more harm than good. Best wishes, --John 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
All links to CU don't appear to be working at the moment, but I grabbed that link from google. For goethean below, I apologized to anyone who was offended back at that time, but I did not mean it in a racial way. I'm sorry if you don't believe that I never heard that term used in any way but the way I described. I just didn't grow up around people using a lot of racial epithets. Excuse my ignorance, I was corrected and informed by that incident. - Crockspot 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- To me, at that time, a porch monkey was a bratty little kid who stands on his mother's porch, and taunts other kids to come and beat him up, while his big brother waits inside the front door.
- Wow. Just wow. — goethean ॐ 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Aren't you the one who used the term "dirty commie jew" in an edit summary and on the talk page of George Soros? I found that offensive at the time, and told you so, and you just shrugged it off. If you want the diffs, I'd be happy to go find them. - Crockspot 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's at 15:00, 20 June 2007. The context seems to have been Goethean criticizing Bill O'Reilly, so I don't imagine anyone will think it reflects badly on him. Tom Harrison Talk 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- There was another edit summary to the article itself I believe. That would be a proper analysis, if O'Reilly had ever called Soros a dirty commie jew. The problem is, he never said that, or even implied it. That's Goethean's assumption of how conservatives think, and is itself offensive. - Crockspot 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a characterization of Soros' critics, who regularly engage in racial and ethnic demagoguery, no matter how willfully naive your own perceptions of them are. I would think that, given your own colorful vocabulary, you'd be a little less sensitive about such things. — goethean ॐ 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- There was another edit summary to the article itself I believe. That would be a proper analysis, if O'Reilly had ever called Soros a dirty commie jew. The problem is, he never said that, or even implied it. That's Goethean's assumption of how conservatives think, and is itself offensive. - Crockspot 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's at 15:00, 20 June 2007. The context seems to have been Goethean criticizing Bill O'Reilly, so I don't imagine anyone will think it reflects badly on him. Tom Harrison Talk 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Aren't you the one who used the term "dirty commie jew" in an edit summary and on the talk page of George Soros? I found that offensive at the time, and told you so, and you just shrugged it off. If you want the diffs, I'd be happy to go find them. - Crockspot 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've heard the term "porch monkey" sed to describe bratty kids before, but something doesn't seem right seeing it took so long for you to explain it that way (unless I missed an earlier explanation like this). New England Review Me! 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Been a little busy, if you haven't noticed. I didn't think it needed explanation until I realized this morning that the "ban crockspot?" thread may not have been linked, only the original thread. - Crockspot 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've heard the term "porch monkey" sed to describe bratty kids before, but something doesn't seem right seeing it took so long for you to explain it that way (unless I missed an earlier explanation like this). New England Review Me! 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you going to address the comment apparently approving of encouraging gays to "off themselves?" When I got to that one I stopped looking because I was just floored. Even the other CU posters in that thread were telling you had gone too far. I have to say I agree. That was chilling, just chilling. ←BenB4 18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can't seem to load CU right now, but if I recall correctly, one CUer was accusing another CUer of advocating the murder of gays. I was pointing out, and correctly so, that the member was not advocating murder, he was at the strongest advocating that they commit suicide. I don't believe that anywhere in that thread do I express agreement with that sentiment, and I do not believe that I was the target of any criticism in that thread. The person who advocated the suicide was. It may be hair splitting to you, but I see a distinction between advocating murder, and saying "why don't you just off yourself?". If someone makes an inaccurate characterization about what someone else said, I am one who will try to clarify what was actually said. - Crockspot 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Closed, but still taking questions
The RfA is closed, and obviously no one can change their !vote, but I have to "live" in this community, so if there is anything else specific I can clear up, please ask away. I will try to check in throughout the afternoon, definitely this evening. - Crockspot 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)