Crockspot RfA, Unsuccessful Options

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Crockspot

The RfA is controversial because of comments Crockspot has made on conservative forums:

I saw on your home Wikipedia userpage that you are a member of a group called Conservative Underground, so I went there. In my opinion I might think from reading there that it is maybe a disturbing site with maybe a lot of hate, against many groups but mostly Gays and Liberals. (maybe others don't think so) I looked at some of your posts. I fear that you maybe aren't right to be an administrator when you make (what I think) 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? (IMO it is, maybe not others) 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 (correct) Link Another thread called: "Fags and Firearms" that you posted in is full of homophobic hate, IMO (maybe not others opinions). Is that the sort of NPOV we need from an administrator? Will you keep posting homophobic hate (IMO) there if you become an administrator? Is your possible alleged 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)

The comments are disgusting and the candidate owes an explanation to the community before being entrusted with the mop. Candidate admits membership in site where same userid made the offensive comments. Other such comments include:

* "New England fag boy"
* referring to an African American as a "porch monkey"
* "VVAW hippie rejects"
* "I vote JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!"
* "the only way this could get any better is if ... came over here and showed us her tits."
* "french-canadian DUmmy types"
* "If anything, he is encouraging them to off themselves. You guys are starting to sound like a bunch of whiny DUmmies." (apparently approving of encouraging the suicide of GLBT people)

There are also references to deliberate trolling in order to get people banned on liberal forums,[50] but it's unclear who is admitting to what; certainly no disapproval. ←BenB4 10:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering these comments, he is doing quite well at the moment: 71/29/3. A mitigating factor may be that these comments were not made on Wikipedia, rather on a completely distinct site.

I think external actions should be a valid RFA matter. They are for everything else, after all.

More wikien-l FUD:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ust/079157.html

Well, he has 70+ supports which surely didn't come out of nowhere. And
since his '''on-wiki''' behaviour appears to be acceptable, there's no
obvious '''on-wiki''' reason this RfA couldn't --or shouldn't, for that
matter-- have passed - or why another RfA in several months wouldn't.

Adrian

So off-site activities are fine evidence for bans, blocks, ANI talks, CheckUsers, and ArbCom, but not RFA?

Will someone that posts on wikien-l PLEASE ask that question? Pretty please? Its mind blowing in it's simplicity.

*sighs* Someone with that kind of bias should not be an administrator - though I'm sure there are other administrators who share the same opinion and don't go broadcasting it off-site in this way.

If they can use external actions for everything else (and nobody seems to bat an eye), they should use them for RFAs as well.

I hate to say "It's only common sense" (sorry Dtobias), but it is.

Wikipedians are so painfully politically correct that its absurd. In the stupid quest to NEVER OFFEND, they're basically being forgiving of this guy Crockspot being a racist, religiously bigoted, homophobic ultra-conservative nutter. Ultra-conservative, sure, I suppose you can be an admin if you leave that brand of insanity at the door (ditto for our liberal friends).

But racism, religious bigotry, and homophobia? Why isn't he running for admin on Conservapedia where he clearly belongs with the other societal rejects that believe that Good People are white Christians that voted Bush 04?

I hope every Wikipedian reading this votes to sink his RFA for the late term abortion it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nship/Crockspot

Shame on MONGO for nominating a homophobe, let alone everything else. Shame on you, MONGO, Tbeatty, and the other supporters there, for supporting homophobia, bigotry, and racism.

Shame on Wikipedia for not violently aborting Crockspot's RFA by immediately ending it. Shame on Wikipedia for supporting homophobia, bigotry, and racism.







For the WR insiders, even more absurd:

# Support. Responsible and trustworthy. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Que? Why is Linda supporting someone who hates Jews and has vomited anti-semetic insanity on other websites? Is she on the outs with Jayjg?

More insanity that no one is stopping:

Now MONGO and the other neo-conservative racist homophobes are tagging "inactive users":

* 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]"


Whats inactive? This apparently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BernardL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dureo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../MonsterShouter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HiDrNick

So if you're not editing 24x7 your RFA !vote doesn't count so much? Utter gaming of the system to get an outed racist into an administrative role.

SHAME.

*sighs* Someone with that kind of bias should not be an administrator - though I'm sure there are other administrators who share the same opinion and don't go broadcasting it off-site in this way.

If they can use external actions for everything else (and nobody seems to bat an eye), they should use them for RFAs as well.

I hate to say "It's only common sense" (sorry Dtobias), but it is.

Hard to say, who knows he was serious off-wiki? I said a lot of things elsewhere which I was joking about. But I believe that several of the issues raised in the oppose side are enough to oppose and make those supporting reconsider their position without having to go off-wiki to find evidences.

I can't find fault in that logic, Xidaf.

Comment by Cyde

Oppose: Wikipedia administrators must not only appear to be reproach regarding certain NPOV issues, they must also be above reproach.

Cyde, you are not "above reproach". In fact, you have been reproached endlessly since your rfa. Therefore, please hand in your tools and move on. Hypocrite.

Comment by Cyde

Oppose: Wikipedia administrators must not only appear to be reproach regarding certain NPOV issues, they must also be above reproach.

Cyde, you are not "above reproach". In fact, you have been reproached endlessly since your rfa. Therefore, please hand in your tools and move on. Hypocrite.

"I will oppose anyone who seeks these positions of power that doesn't meet these standards. I humbly accept your nomination. Thank you, for granting me adminship. I will oppose anyone except myself who seeks these positions of power that doesn't meet these standards."

Also known as,

"Shit don't lose my bit shit don't lose my bit my low self-esteem is defined by my e-powers shit don't lose my bit..."

Comment by Cyde

Oppose: Wikipedia administrators must not only appear to be reproach regarding certain NPOV issues, they must also be above reproach.

Cyde, you are not "above reproach". In fact, you have been reproached endlessly since your rfa. Therefore, please hand in your tools and move on. Hypocrite.

How can people seeking to exercise authority while hooded with a pseudonymous identity ever be or seem above reproach?

Comment by Cyde

Oppose: Wikipedia administrators must not only appear to be reproach regarding certain NPOV issues, they must also be above reproach.

Cyde, you are not "above reproach". In fact, you have been reproached endlessly since your rfa. Therefore, please hand in your tools and move on. Hypocrite.

How can people seeking to exercise authority while hooded with a pseudonymous identity ever be or seem above reproach?

Easily. Their hoods allow them moral and ethical freedom to be nasty--because it's not them, it's a role they're filling.

In the case of Crockspot, I think it would be a "white hood" that is worn, sadly. For shame.





And uh oh, conservative backlash...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ing_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 guess we know what Mr. Harrison thinks of 'bears' now. Why is this man an admin? Horrific.

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)

MONGO is clearly bitter that conservative opinions and views are marginilazed on Wikipedia. If the majority of people consider your views to be minority fringe views, who's fault is that? The broad community that sees your views as offensive and fringe, or the people espousing the minority fringe views?

I wonder if that sounds familiar to the conservative group of MONGO, Harrison, and Crockspot. They do seem to spend a lot of time marginilizing fringe views of conspiracies on Wikipedia. It appears they get rather upset at being marginilized themselves.

Racism, homophobia, and bigotry are not socially acceptable. It is very moral and ethical of Wikipedia to now take these abusive people to task for their actions, and to limit their ability to harm Wikipedia further inch by inch. Bigotry such as that supported by MONGO, Harrison, Tbeatty, and Crockspot have no place in modern society and these people are now being pushed to the corners. Good.

This post has been edited by Infoboy:

Now standing at 71/37/9. If the RfA process has any integrity left at all (highly doubtful), there is no way he will make it. If he makes it, all the better for us and the ultimate downfall of WP. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Now standing at 71/37/9. If the RfA process has any integrity left at all (highly doubtful), there is no way he will make it. If he makes it, all the better for us and the ultimate downfall of WP. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

If an outed racist is promoted to adminship, that will make for one hell of a news article for this site.

They're going berserk, now. Is this or is this not a FLAGRANT BLP vio?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151274657

I think Harrison's support of that is based on facts...the 9/11 "Truth Movement" is nothing about truth and everything about making a money. Making money based on misrepresentations of the facts, making money by charging entrance fees to come hear their "evidence", making money by writing books filled with misrepresentations and inaccuracies. A "movement" is like the Civil Rights Movement, not some make a quick buck scheme by a bunch of nonscientists, preying on the ignorant and trying to steal their money. --MONGO 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA to ANI spillover, and MONGO getting indignant at being challenged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ts#Socks_at_Rfa

Excuse me, but did you call me a liar?--MONGO 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA to ANI spillover, and MONGO getting indignant at being challenged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ts#Socks_at_Rfa

Excuse me, but did you call me a liar?--MONGO 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to bite my tongue for now.

I'll have more to add later.

This post has been edited by Derktar:

RFA to ANI spillover, and MONGO getting indignant at being challenged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ts#Socks_at_Rfa

Excuse me, but did you call me a liar?--MONGO 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, MONGO's doing more to sink this RfA that Crockpot ever could. I think he thinks he's helping.

For what it's worth, I've always had a fairly high opinion of Harrison, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_harrison/concerns and various other things. I don't want to defend his little comment.

In any event, yeah. You don't need to say "bigotted jackass" to find a reason to oppose. Conservative Admins can get through - I'm a conservative (sort of ... uhm, I'd rather not explain the Canadian Political Spectrum here) and I'm an admin. I'm just not a racist homophobic jackass (though I may be that third one).

I don't think his comment was completly nonesense, I just would have opposed the nomination regardless, some of the issues raised by the opposers are enough to oppose and his answers even more.

RFA to ANI spillover, and MONGO getting indignant at being challenged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ts#Socks_at_Rfa

Excuse me, but did you call me a liar?--MONGO 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, MONGO's doing more to sink this RfA that Crockpot ever could. I think he thinks he's helping.

For what it's worth, I've always had a fairly high opinion of Harrison, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_harrison/concerns and various other things. I don't want to defend his little comment.

In any event, yeah. You don't need to say "bigotted jackass" to find a reason to oppose. Conservative Admins can get through - I'm a conservative (sort of ... uhm, I'd rather not explain the Canadian Political Spectrum here) and I'm an admin. I'm just not a racist homophobic jackass (though I may be that third one).

And now MrGiblets, who's third edit was to support Crockspot, has claimed he stumbled across the nomination here (on AN/I).

Huh.

I don't think his comment was completly nonesense, I just would have opposed the nomination regardless, some of the issues raised by the opposers are enough to oppose and his answers even more.

I just meant - harrison seems to be a good guy who's usually on the ball. He may be overreacting to the perception that Crockspot is being attacked for being a conservative, rather than a nutjob conservative.

I check this, much like I have checked the other stuff reported here and I am saddened to see that problems are generalized and not limited in my limited Wikiuniverse (the articles I was contributed in).

The issue of sockuppetery, underground canvassing and every other crap still there as anywhere else. No kidding if I was Crockspot place I would drop the nomination, at this point this is what a respectful interger person would do.

The guy seems to have a hidden agenda, is a little off in the head (i.e. strange, in the scary, nonsensical, and hateful way), and wears a "mask" to hide all this while editing Wikipedia. Sounds like he'll fit right in!

Alright, well at first I was thinking about keeping this private but since MONGO went ahead and plastered accusations on ANI of opposers canvassing I shall tell you that I received an e-mail from MONGO asking for support for Crockspot's RFA yesterday.

At first I was thrown off by this, a letter from MONGO himself? How does he know me? Stumped by this I went back and checked and it seems I voted to support MONGO in his original RFA in 2005. How naive I was back then! But then again I didn't know much about MONGO back then, in fact I didn't really know much about policy and Wikipedia itself though.

Anyway, I went ahead and voted support to see if my vote would be caught and struck as being from an "inactive user", but it seems it wasn't, big surprise. If MONGO just wasn't so confrontational things wouldn't blow up to such dramatic levels. I think MONGO means well or at least meant well at one point, but the numerous trolls and vandals have conspired to rob him of his good will and sanity. I daresay such is the fate of any person who becomes ingrained within the Wikipedia power structure.

MONGO, if you are reading this, just give up on Wikipedia. Long ago I tried to edit errors as they appeared, but there was always another error and another and another to eat up my time, and for what purpose? To get a free encyclopedia together for every person in the world? Call me disillusioned but I just don't see that vision coming to fruition ever with the current power struggles and conflict within Wikipedia and the various factions.

Oh and did poor MrGibblets really deserve a ban? I made the same mistake of linking to WR once, but I survived somehow, SlimVirgin simply gave me a warning.

This post has been edited by Derktar:

Alright, well at first I was thinking about keeping this private but since MONGO went ahead and plastered accusations on ANI of opposers canvassing I shall tell you that I received an e-mail from MONGO asking for support for Crockspot's RFA yesterday.

At first I was thrown off by this, a letter from MONGO himself? How does he know me? Stumped by this I went back and checked and it seems I voted to support MONGO in his original RFA in 2005. How naive I was back then! But then again I didn't know much about MONGO back then, in fact I didn't really know much about policy and Wikipedia itself though.

Anyway, I went ahead and voted support to see if my vote would be caught and struck as being from an "inactive user", but it seems it wasn't, big surprise. If MONGO just wasn't so confrontational things wouldn't blow up to such dramatic levels. I think MONGO means well or at least meant well at one point, but the numerous trolls and vandals have conspired to rob him of his good will and sanity. I daresay such is the fate of any person who becomes ingrained within the Wikipedia power structure.

MONGO, if you are reading this, just give up on Wikipedia. Long ago I tried to edit errors as they appeared, but there was always another error and another and another to eat up my time, and for what purpose? To get a free encyclopedia together for every person in the world? Call me disillusioned but I just don't see that vision coming to fruition ever with the current power struggles and conflict within Wikipedia and the various factions.

Oh and did poor MrGibblets really deserve a ban? I made the same mistake of linking to WR once, but I survived somehow, SlimVirgin simply gave me a warning.

Yeah, they pretty much gave MrGibblets the ax, so much for respect and not biting the newbie. They chopped his head off in quick thanksgiven fashion. I guess the wikidicky admin must preserve the purity of the wikipeida and protect the young from the web site (which must not be named)

Freedom and openness from one side of the mouth and censorship and cyberdeth from the other.

The hypocrisy is so blatant that it stinks like old, dead carp.

Is this really a surprise? MANGO is not alone canvassing by email, I have been emailed countless numbers of times to vote. Most of the time I just didn't vote and ignored. Those votes are mostly manipulated, canvassing abound. There is no point in voting, the mass is manipulated with underground solicitations.

Alright, well at first I was thinking about keeping this private but since MONGO went ahead and plastered accusations on ANI of opposers canvassing I shall tell you that I received an e-mail from MONGO asking for support for Crockspot's RFA yesterday.

At first I was thrown off by this, a letter from MONGO himself? How does he know me? Stumped by this I went back and checked and it seems I voted to support MONGO in his original RFA in 2005. How naive I was back then! But then again I didn't know much about MONGO back then, in fact I didn't really know much about policy and Wikipedia itself though.

Anyway, I went ahead and voted support to see if my vote would be caught and struck as being from an "inactive user", but it seems it wasn't, big surprise. If MONGO just wasn't so confrontational things wouldn't blow up to such dramatic levels. I think MONGO means well or at least meant well at one point, but the numerous trolls and vandals have conspired to rob him of his good will and sanity. I daresay such is the fate of any person who becomes ingrained within the Wikipedia power structure.

MONGO, if you are reading this, just give up on Wikipedia. Long ago I tried to edit errors as they appeared, but there was always another error and another and another to eat up my time, and for what purpose? To get a free encyclopedia together for every person in the world? Call me disillusioned but I just don't see that vision coming to fruition ever with the current power struggles and conflict within Wikipedia and the various factions.

Oh and did poor MrGibblets really deserve a ban? I made the same mistake of linking to WR once, but I survived somehow, SlimVirgin simply gave me a warning.

Is this really a surprise? MANGO is not alone canvassing by email, I have been emailed countless numbers of times to vote. Most of the time I just didn't vote and ignored. Those votes are mostly manipulated, canvassing abound. There is no point in voting, the mass is manipulated with underground solicitations.

It's not surprising but the sheer audacity of accusing others of canvassing just dumbfounds me.

It's not surprising but the sheer audacity of accusing others of canvassing just dumbfounds me.

WINNER !!! WINNER !!! WINNER !!!

Your post has been selected by a sooper-sekrit string search algorithm and hereby qualifies you for a seat on the Supreme Elect Bored Of The Dumbfoundation.

CONGRATULATIONS YOU LUCKY DOG !!!

To validate your election to the Supreme Elect Bored Of The Dumbfoundation, simply send a cashier's check for US$2048.00 to Name Redacted.


This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

It's not surprising but the sheer audacity of accusing others of canvassing just dumbfounds me.

WINNER !!! WINNER !!! WINNER !!!

Your post has been selected by a sooper-sekrit string search algorithm and hereby qualifies you for a seat on the Supreme Elect Bored Of The Dumfoundation.

CONGRATULATIONS YOU LUCKY DOG !!!

To validate your election to the Supreme Elect Bored Of The Dumbfoundation, simply send a cashier's check for US$2048.00 to Name Redacted.

A rouge's gallery...


* Michael E. Davis
* Erik Möller
* Florence Nibart-Devouard
* Frieda Brioschi
* Jan-Bart de Vreede
* Jimmy Wales
* Kat Walsh
dumb and dumber...when are the class actions going to start?

It's not surprising but the sheer audacity of accusing others of canvassing just dumbfounds me.

WINNER !!! WINNER !!! WINNER !!!

Your post has been selected by a sooper-sekrit string search algorithm and hereby qualifies you for a seat on the Supreme Elect Bored Of The Dumfoundation.

CONGRATULATIONS YOU LUCKY DOG !!!

To validate your election to the Supreme Elect Bored Of The Dumbfoundation, simply send a cashier's check for US$2048.00 to Name Redacted.

A rouge's gallery...


* Michael E. Davis
* Erik Möller
* Florence Nibart-Devouard
* Frieda Brioschi
* Jan-Bart de Vreede
* Jimmy Wales
* Kat Walsh
dumb and dumber...when are the class actions going to start?

Name Redacted? Confound it!

And where am I gonna get $2,000.00...hmm...

This post has been edited by Derktar:

Name Redacted? Confound it!

Sorry, only one seat per family — it's a very small "out"house, if you cache my drift — and besides, there are no open seats at present on the Supreme Elect Bored Of The Confoundation.

And I'm sure you can imagine how painful that is.

But keep those cards and letters coming …

Name Redacted

Alright, well at first I was thinking about keeping this private but since MONGO went ahead and plastered accusations on ANI of opposers canvassing I shall tell you that I received an e-mail from MONGO asking for support for Crockspot's RFA yesterday.

At first I was thrown off by this, a letter from MONGO himself? How does he know me? Stumped by this I went back and checked and it seems I voted to support MONGO in his original RFA in 2005. How naive I was back then! But then again I didn't know much about MONGO back then, in fact I didn't really know much about policy and Wikipedia itself though.

Anyway, I went ahead and voted support to see if my vote would be caught and struck as being from an "inactive user", but it seems it wasn't, big surprise. If MONGO just wasn't so confrontational things wouldn't blow up to such dramatic levels. I think MONGO means well or at least meant well at one point, but the numerous trolls and vandals have conspired to rob him of his good will and sanity. I daresay such is the fate of any person who becomes ingrained within the Wikipedia power structure.

MONGO, if you are reading this, just give up on Wikipedia. Long ago I tried to edit errors as they appeared, but there was always another error and another and another to eat up my time, and for what purpose? To get a free encyclopedia together for every person in the world? Call me disillusioned but I just don't see that vision coming to fruition ever with the current power struggles and conflict within Wikipedia and the various factions.

Oh and did poor MrGibblets really deserve a ban? I made the same mistake of linking to WR once, but I survived somehow, SlimVirgin simply gave me a warning.

Why don't you post this evidence on ANI? Shut his mouth up once and for all.

Alright, well at first I was thinking about keeping this private but since MONGO went ahead and plastered accusations on ANI of opposers canvassing I shall tell you that I received an e-mail from MONGO asking for support for Crockspot's RFA yesterday.

At first I was thrown off by this, a letter from MONGO himself? How does he know me? Stumped by this I went back and checked and it seems I voted to support MONGO in his original RFA in 2005. How naive I was back then! But then again I didn't know much about MONGO back then, in fact I didn't really know much about policy and Wikipedia itself though.

Anyway, I went ahead and voted support to see if my vote would be caught and struck as being from an "inactive user", but it seems it wasn't, big surprise. If MONGO just wasn't so confrontational things wouldn't blow up to such dramatic levels. I think MONGO means well or at least meant well at one point, but the numerous trolls and vandals have conspired to rob him of his good will and sanity. I daresay such is the fate of any person who becomes ingrained within the Wikipedia power structure.

MONGO, if you are reading this, just give up on Wikipedia. Long ago I tried to edit errors as they appeared, but there was always another error and another and another to eat up my time, and for what purpose? To get a free encyclopedia together for every person in the world? Call me disillusioned but I just don't see that vision coming to fruition ever with the current power struggles and conflict within Wikipedia and the various factions.

Oh and did poor MrGibblets really deserve a ban? I made the same mistake of linking to WR once, but I survived somehow, SlimVirgin simply gave me a warning.

Why don't you post this evidence on ANI? Shut his mouth up once and for all.

Do you have the email with headers ? I am in contact with muckraker Bmedley Sutler.

Someone called for MONGO civility probation, and it was instantly reverted out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151332641

Civility probation proposal for MONGO

Perhaps it's just high time the community considers taking MONGO to the Community Sanction noticeboard. His contributions to the National Parks articles are clearly valuable, but the man leaves a monthly if not weekly trail of ashes, flames, and drama in his wake especially on articles related to 9/11, the United States, and just about everything in Wikipedia article space. He more RFCs by legitimate editors against him than any other user, and two of the most obnoxious and nastiest RFARs that have left nothing but bile and bitterness all over Wikipedia for the past two years. Does he get trolled? Sure, sometimes, but the man does nothing to remove drama. He exacerbates it, by flaming right back. If not an outright parole/block from anything 9/11 or 'contentious' then a permanent Civility Probation is beyond overdue.

If someone can't just delete trolling or CRITICISM without lashing out like wild--which goes back to his very first edits on this site--perhaps others need to reign him in before he's lost completely. It would be a shame, but we need to intervene on his behalf. Recommend civility probation, standard format, one year minimum. 24 hours first offense, then 48, 72, etc., as anyone else would receive. Nothing else seems to work, as he actively seeks out trouble. He even lashed out on Crockspot's RFA at Mackenson of all people (redacted by Evula now). For MONGO's own good he needs this. This is an official proposal for this.

wow. Can't suggest that, looks like.

Also, this SevenofDiamonds that MONGO rails against daily now, who is he allegedly supposed to be a sockpuppet of? Hasn't he already passed over five RFCUs that MONGO has rammed at him in the past month? Isn't that harrasment?

This post has been edited by Infoboy:

Someone called for MONGO civility probation, and it was instantly reverted out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151332641

Civility probation proposal for MONGO

Perhaps it's just high time the community considers taking MONGO to the Community Sanction noticeboard. His contributions to the National Parks articles are clearly valuable, but the man leaves a monthly if not weekly trail of ashes, flames, and drama in his wake especially on articles related to 9/11, the United States, and just about everything in Wikipedia article space. He more RFCs by legitimate editors against him than any other user, and two of the most obnoxious and nastiest RFARs that have left nothing but bile and bitterness all over Wikipedia for the past two years. Does he get trolled? Sure, sometimes, but the man does nothing to remove drama. He exacerbates it, by flaming right back. If not an outright parole/block from anything 9/11 or 'contentious' then a permanent Civility Probation is beyond overdue.

If someone can't just delete trolling or CRITICISM without lashing out like wild--which goes back to his very first edits on this site--perhaps others need to reign him in before he's lost completely. It would be a shame, but we need to intervene on his behalf. Recommend civility probation, standard format, one year minimum. 24 hours first offense, then 48, 72, etc., as anyone else would receive. Nothing else seems to work, as he actively seeks out trouble. He even lashed out on Crockspot's RFA at Mackenson of all people (redacted by Evula now). For MONGO's own good he needs this. This is an official proposal for this.

wow. Can't suggest that, looks like.

Also, this SevenofDiamonds that MONGO rails against daily now, who is he allegedly supposed to be a sockpuppet of? Hasn't he already passed over five RFCUs that MONGO has rammed at him in the past month? Isn't that harrasment?

See


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151332666

And now MONGO has been given final warning by Viridae, and lashes out at her in reply:

Formal warning

Consider this a formal warning MONGO. If you pull another stunt like calling Evula (or anyone else for that matter) a jerk or any other offensive insult you WILL be blocked. I don't care how long term a contributor you are, is is absolutely unacceptable to start throwing out insults in response to completely civil attempts to communicate with you. I hope that any other uninvolved admin can consider this a final warning too, should they come across anything like that again in the near future. ViridaeTalk 06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Boxed yourself in a corner...show me the diff where I called Evula a Jerk...furthermore...right now, save what face you have and go warn those other editors who were insulting me. Act impartially...and do so now.--MONGO 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, misread the above thread. The warning stands. I am looking into SoD's behaviour but I havent seen anything on that level yet. ViridaeTalk 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...#Formal_warning

Lets see what happens now.

Wow, they're desperate to protect MONGO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Case/Lovelight

They only narrowed the IPs down to Roadrunner, the biggest cable modem service in New York City, with approximately 15,000,000 people in the area that can get that service with a hostname of nyc.rr.com. Can someone slap Tbeatty with a cluestick on that Checkuser? WTF.

And we have MONGO breakdown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151337804

Removes the formal Admin warning with the summary, "removed...threats are not tolerable".

And now MONGO has been given final warning by Viridae, and lashes out at her in reply:

Formal warning

Consider this a formal warning MONGO. If you pull another stunt like calling Evula (or anyone else for that matter) a jerk or any other offensive insult you WILL be blocked. I don't care how long term a contributor you are, is is absolutely unacceptable to start throwing out insults in response to completely civil attempts to communicate with you. I hope that any other uninvolved admin can consider this a final warning too, should they come across anything like that again in the near future. ViridaeTalk 06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Boxed yourself in a corner...show me the diff where I called Evula a Jerk...furthermore...right now, save what face you have and go warn those other editors who were insulting me. Act impartially...and do so now.--MONGO 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, misread the above thread. The warning stands. I am looking into SoD's behaviour but I havent seen anything on that level yet. ViridaeTalk 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...#Formal_warning

Lets see what happens now.

Wow, they're desperate to protect MONGO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Case/Lovelight

They only narrowed the IPs down to Roadrunner, the biggest cable modem service in New York City, with approximately 15,000,000 people in the area that can get that service with a hostname of nyc.rr.com. Can someone slap Tbeatty with a cluestick on that Checkuser? WTF.

I'm a he.

I'm a he.

Sorry, sir. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

I always thought that the WP anti-canvassing position was not only a serious violation of fair process but just plain weird. Why can't people who care about issues be informed that a process is addressing the issue? The alternative is Management-By-Whoever-Wanders-By. It also is an advantage to people with off channel communication, which usually means united by a specific real world POV to push. It would better to allow unlimited canvassing on wiki. It would be transparent and avoid a whole lot of sneaky stuff and nasty accusations. This prohibition against canvassing is part of the failure of consensus that plaques WP.

Mongo and his elk are a relatively minor sub-cabal. I think he is over reaching to attempt to "consensus coup" this RfA which seems doomed to fail. Maybe pulling off such a grab is new way to measure status on WP. Still it is very entertaining when they have to threaten-ban-accuse to reach a simple decision.

We have complaints about Wikipedia Review now on the RFA:

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)

I guess reporting on and making observations about the RFA is now inappropriate. I didn't seem to remember seeing password protection or viewing restrictions on the RFA page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...i_canvassing.3F

Also, look at the blog.wired.com entry in that image:

You People Are Liberal Swine
by Anonymous

Your a bunch of liberal assholes trying to stop a real American from becoming an admin. Why? Because he stood up against sodomites like you all.

Charming, eh? Maybe Wikipedia should have a policy that supporting opinions that would violate or interfere with United States non-discrimination, equal rights laws, and civil rights laws should be bannable. WP:BADPEOPLE? Or would that fall under WP:HUMANDECENCY, or the simple WP:DIGNITY?

I always thought that the WP anti-canvassing position was not only a serious violation of fair process but just plain weird. Why can't people who care about issues be informed that a process is addressing the issue? The alternative is Management-By-Whoever-Wanders-By. It also is an advantage to people with off channel communication, which usually means united by a specific real world POV to push. It would better to allow unlimited canvassing on wiki. It would be transparent and avoid a whole lot of sneaky stuff and nasty accusations. This prohibition against canvassing is part of the failure of consensus that plaques WP.

Precisely, and it's silly. Wikipedia needs utter transparency. Lets have public e-mail logs as well. If UserA emails UserB, UserC, UserD, etc., it should show that UserA did so. Nothing more. Just time, date. If UserZ receives four emails, list who sent him emails, and time/date. Nothing more. Then let people canvass their silly hearts out.

Having more people be aware of an issue is a good thing, but I'll tell you right now that the people who primarily edit and 'maintain' policies will violently shit their pants and scream fucking MURDER if someone seriously tried to get such a change enabled. It would basically marginalize them out of process and policy control, as anyone could draw people's attentions to issues with a free hand.

And since most people that do policy work are senior admins (Sidaway, SlimVirgin, etc.) that will never fly without a war, illegal Checkusering, and bannings like it was Joseph Stalin's Wikipedia.

Mongo and his elk are a relatively minor sub-cabal. I think he is over reaching to attempt to "consensus coup" this RfA which seems doomed to fail. Maybe pulling off such a grab is new way to measure status on WP. Still it is very entertaining when they have to threaten-ban-accuse to reach a simple decision.

MONGO and his Goof Troop are hapless and helpless. No one likes them because the demographics of Wikipedia aren't conservative Christian males who are older like they are. MONGO, Arthur Rubin, Tom Harrison, Tim Beatty, and Morton Devonshire (that picture is a fake--he's admitted via comments to remembering events as an adult that occurred nearly 20+ years ago, so he's clearly not in his 20s) are older professional men, and not the 'standard' Wikipedia user base at all. They're an aberration that is trying to remake Wikipedia into Conservapedia. Or Republicanopedia, or Fundiepedia, I don't know.

Evidence of failed attempts? This RFA and the "Conservative Backlash" from it. They're accusing EVERYONE that opposed Crackpot of being either Bad Faith, a troll, a sockpuppet, or biased, and they're even trying to get multiple Opposers banned now. Before that, remember MONGO with his "Wikipedians for Encyclopediac Merit" horseshit from 2004 or 2005? Basically, he tried HARD to make it policy to delete all objectionable material from Wikipedia. Objectionable to who? Well, the demographic was basically MONGO: older white conservative Christian males. Hint hint: Wikipedia isn't Christian. It's an ENCYCLOPEDIA.

Why are MONGO and the Republican Party going nuts? Because they're frankly losing their long term efforts to conservatize Wikipedia and every few months they get increasingly furious about it. Well, fuck them. If your views weren't minority fringe views maybe you'd have more support. Gays, blacks and Jews are evil? News to me that all my gay, black, and Jew friends are evil. I suppose the godfather of my children, who qualifies for two out of those three, must be leading my kids straight to Hell. Here I thought they just got straight A's and were very nice kids.

And MONGO is just utterly bent. Now HE is issuing final warnings to an ADMIN. Who the fuck does this guy think he is?!

I'm frankly astonished they haven't pitched his ass into the Community sanction noticeboard for being completely out of bounds ten times over...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151404875

Your lack of impartiality is noted. Don't ever threaten me like you did again. This is your final warning.--MONGO 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW. WOW.

This post has been edited by Infoboy:

Lovely, Tim Beatty (Tbeatty) supports on-wiki and off-wiki attacks, and Attack Sites like Wikipedia Review apparently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151421233

He inserts a link to:

http://www.digg.com/tech_news/WikiScanner_...519328#c8519328

Which has a HUGE honking link back to this very thread. Well played, Tim. Doofus.

Lovely, Tim Beatty (Tbeatty) supports on-wiki and off-wiki attacks, and Attack Sites like Wikipedia Review apparently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151421233

He inserts a link to:
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/WikiScanner_...519328#c8519328

Which has a HUGE honking link back to this very thread. Well played, Tim. Doofus.

There is something fishy about this. First off, that DIGG story is very unpopular thus how did he come across it? Second, the post written that he references is over-the-top and unncessary. The RfA looked like it was going to fail before this was written and any single purpose accounts that it attracts aren't going to make one bit of difference.

I would call bullshit on this DIGG "canvasing" post, it doesn't ring true at all. Instead it appears like an attempt to invalidate the real failure of this RfA by creating boogymen to blame it on.

The truth is this RfA failed because of the opinion of many established Wikipedia users who honestly felt that this type of behavior from Crockspot was inappropriate.

I concur with you, the link to this thread was unncessary, if it was real canvassing the guy would have better used the Crockspot off-wiki remarks rather than an outcast forum to make his point. Knowing that just seing this forum being used to oppose some editors would be supporting the RfA just for the sake of opposing WR. It is more like a fraud meant to make a user of this forum being accused of inciting meatpuppeting to oppose. And it is obvious from the votes that the RfA won't pass as you have remarked which makes such an action useless.

I concur with you, the link to this thread was unncessary, if it was real canvassing the guy would have better used the Crockspot off-wiki remarks rather than an outcast forum to make his point. Knowing that just seing this forum being used to oppose some editors would be supporting the RfA just for the sake of opposing WR. It is more like a fraud meant to make a user of this forum being accused of inciting meatpuppeting to oppose. And it is obvious from the votes that the RfA won't pass as you have remarked which makes such an action useless.

So everyone is in agreement that Tim Beatty and Crockspot are simply plastering Wikipedia Review and Digg.com all over creation now in an effort to try to discredit the idea of all the opposition to the RFA?

In effect, they are trying to now sway beuarocrats in an effort to bypass the community decision that Crockspot should never be an admin due to his disturbing racist views.

How come MONGO gets to suppress "attack site links" when they're posted by people he doesn't like, but his allies are free to post whatever links they want when they think they serve their purposes?

Now a user is blocked for POSSIBLE off-wiki activities--not even confirmed, not even admitted. Because it MIGHT be him, because of Team America and Crockspot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...A_from_off-wiki

Great quote:

Folks - there is no substantial evidence that vectorsector is Eleemosynary. The extension of the block is setting the precedent that anyone can go off-wiki, pretend to be someone on-wiki and make slanderous remarks, and the on-wiki person gets blocked for it, regardless of that person's guilt. That is embarrassing. For all we know Eleemosynary has nothing to do with vectorsector. I recommend reducing the block immediately before this gets out of hand. Rockstar (T/C) 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting completely out of hand. So if I made an account myself as Crockspot on Digg and started flaming racist crap over this, would it be taken at face value of being Crockspot? Literally, because Crockspot and Tom Harrison said THAT IS A 1-WEEK BANNED USER DOING SOMETHING OFF-WIKI, they extended the ban wildy with no evidence of it.

Also, the SevenofDiamons SIXTH Checkuser is now a farce; one of Team America's own patriots, User:Aude, turned on his countrymen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Case/Lovelight

This request can be closed by a clerk, as Unrelated and Stale. I know what IPs (and geographic location) that Lovelight edited from, which were revealed previously, and they are not a match for SevenOfDiamonds or the IP address in question. Also, Lovelight hasn't edited since May 1, so the request would also be stale. It would probably be improper for me to close this request, but a clerk should do so. --Aude (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole fiasco is just more and more absurd.

How come MONGO gets to suppress "attack site links" when they're posted by people he doesn't like, but his allies are free to post whatever links they want when they think they serve their purposes?

You should honestly ask that question on the ANI thread. If they accuse you of stalking or harassment, call them on their own harassment of other users. Seriously wish someone would stand up to these guys, they're now blocking people who aren't even active on WP over this...!

Lovely, Tim Beatty (Tbeatty) supports on-wiki and off-wiki attacks, and Attack Sites like Wikipedia Review apparently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151421233

He inserts a link to:
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/WikiScanner_...519328#c8519328

Which has a HUGE honking link back to this very thread. Well played, Tim. Doofus.

There is something fishy about this. First off, that DIGG story is very unpopular thus how did he come across it? Second, the post written that he references is over-the-top and unncessary. The RfA looked like it was going to fail before this was written and any single purpose accounts that it attracts aren't going to make one bit of difference.

I would call bullshit on this DIGG "canvasing" post, it doesn't ring true at all. Instead it appears like an attempt to invalidate the real failure of this RfA by creating boogymen to blame it on.

The truth is this RfA failed because of the opinion of many established Wikipedia users who honestly felt that this type of behavior from Crockspot was inappropriate.

Indeed Crockpot has been bubbling the whole time about something big in the tubes, and then he finds it - it seems most likely the digg.com post is by Crockpot himself

This was interesting.

SlimVirgin, as we know, has been semi-absent. She didn't edit at all from 7-12 August, then made 10 edits, and then hasn't edited at all for the past 3 days since. Of those 10 edits, guess what they were?

5 Animal Rights related
2 Biographies of Living Persons
3 Request for Adminships - all support

Now, we all know that Animal Rights and BLPs are of special interest to her. So surely the 3 admins are ones who she so vehemently supports. Guess who one of them was?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=150861617

Of course, at the time, he was (60/5/1), well and truly on track to get adminship. Since then the votes have gone heavily against him, and he's about 75/75.

Interesting though that SlimVirgin would have voted for someone who seems to be some kind of a Ku Klux Klan member, or something of the kind.

I mean, recall that SlimVirgin's primary criticism of Wikipedia Review is that:

1) We stalk and harass people (Especially her!)
2) This is a neo-nazi front, and we are all racists

So if she hates racism so much that she is willing to label us all as racists merely to try to try to shut us up, surely she wouldn't be supporting an actual racist?

And surely given that that was one of only 10 edits that she's made in the past week, that surely that one was well thought out. Surely this is what she really believes. Surely she knows his history.

I just find it interesting, anyway. Perhaps poor SV didn't realise that she was accidentally supporting a racist. Perhaps once she finds out she'll change her vote. Let's wait.

I don't believe Smedly or whoever had revealed the discovery of the racism until after Linda Mack issued her patronage !vote, in hindsight. It is horrible of her not to retract, however. Unless she hates Jews...

Alright, well at first I was thinking about keeping this private but since MONGO went ahead and plastered accusations on ANI of opposers canvassing I shall tell you that I received an e-mail from MONGO asking for support for Crockspot's RFA yesterday.

At first I was thrown off by this, a letter from MONGO himself? How does he know me? Stumped by this I went back and checked and it seems I voted to support MONGO in his original RFA in 2005. How naive I was back then! But then again I didn't know much about MONGO back then, in fact I didn't really know much about policy and Wikipedia itself though.

Anyway, I went ahead and voted support to see if my vote would be caught and struck as being from an "inactive user", but it seems it wasn't, big surprise. If MONGO just wasn't so confrontational things wouldn't blow up to such dramatic levels. I think MONGO means well or at least meant well at one point, but the numerous trolls and vandals have conspired to rob him of his good will and sanity. I daresay such is the fate of any person who becomes ingrained within the Wikipedia power structure.

MONGO, if you are reading this, just give up on Wikipedia. Long ago I tried to edit errors as they appeared, but there was always another error and another and another to eat up my time, and for what purpose? To get a free encyclopedia together for every person in the world? Call me disillusioned but I just don't see that vision coming to fruition ever with the current power struggles and conflict within Wikipedia and the various factions.

Oh and did poor MrGibblets really deserve a ban? I made the same mistake of linking to WR once, but I survived somehow, SlimVirgin simply gave me a warning.

Why don't you post this evidence on ANI? Shut his mouth up once and for all.

Do you have the email with headers ? I am in contact with muckraker Bmedley Sutler.

Sorry had some work I had to do late last night.

Well I would post this on ANI but since it's now been circulating across the mailing list and Digg and now people know of the WR link here, it probably doesn't matter, especially since Crockspot's RFA turned into a huge battlefield.

Though if anyone wants a screenshot of the e-mail I could still send it to you, just message me via e-mail if you are interested.

Alright, well at first I was thinking about keeping this private but since MONGO went ahead and plastered accusations on ANI of opposers canvassing I shall tell you that I received an e-mail from MONGO asking for support for Crockspot's RFA yesterday.

At first I was thrown off by this, a letter from MONGO himself? How does he know me? Stumped by this I went back and checked and it seems I voted to support MONGO in his original RFA in 2005. How naive I was back then! But then again I didn't know much about MONGO back then, in fact I didn't really know much about policy and Wikipedia itself though.

Anyway, I went ahead and voted support to see if my vote would be caught and struck as being from an "inactive user", but it seems it wasn't, big surprise. If MONGO just wasn't so confrontational things wouldn't blow up to such dramatic levels. I think MONGO means well or at least meant well at one point, but the numerous trolls and vandals have conspired to rob him of his good will and sanity. I daresay such is the fate of any person who becomes ingrained within the Wikipedia power structure.

MONGO, if you are reading this, just give up on Wikipedia. Long ago I tried to edit errors as they appeared, but there was always another error and another and another to eat up my time, and for what purpose? To get a free encyclopedia together for every person in the world? Call me disillusioned but I just don't see that vision coming to fruition ever with the current power struggles and conflict within Wikipedia and the various factions.

Oh and did poor MrGibblets really deserve a ban? I made the same mistake of linking to WR once, but I survived somehow, SlimVirgin simply gave me a warning.

Why don't you post this evidence on ANI? Shut his mouth up once and for all.

Do you have the email with headers ? I am in contact with muckraker Bmedley Sutler.

Sorry had some work I had to do late last night.

Well I would post this on ANI but since it's now been circulating across the mailing list and Digg and now people know of the WR link here, it probably doesn't matter, especially since Crockspot's RFA turned into a huge battlefield.

Though if anyone wants a screenshot of the e-mail I could still send it to you, just message me via e-mail if you are interested.

Willing to have it reposted here?

Willing to have it reposted here?

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/2127/mongomessageqy2.png

Mongo and his elk are a relatively minor sub-cabal. . . .

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Elk1.jpg/450px-Elk1.jpg)

IM IN UR WEBSITE

REMOVING UR INTOLERABLE THREATS

I'll quote that for easier reading:

Care to help to help out Crockspot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nship/Crockspot

Mongo and his elk are a relatively minor sub-cabal. . . .

I'd say that's one evil cabal. Where does this guy fit in?

Mongo and his elk are a relatively minor sub-cabal. . . .

I'd say that's one evil cabal. Where does this guy fit in?

Ilk.

Also watch the Reindeer Cabal, Mule Deer Cabal and worst of all the Moose Illuminati.

One interesting thing is that there is a person called Mr Gibblets who was banned, basically, for:

1) Voting SUPPORT to Crockspot, as a new user
2) Linking to Wikipediareview.com (here), and specifically to this post (criticised by MONGO)
3) Complaining about decisions on the admin noticeboard.

Banned indefinitely as a "Vandalism only account"

I thought it was odd that he linked to us here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151295119

This ultimately is what got him banned.

And if MrGibblets is someone who posts here, well, you're banned already, so unless you've got a second non-banned alias on Wikipedia (sock puppet), then would you mind saying who you are? If you don't yet have an account can you create one?

Willing to have it reposted here?

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/2127/mongomessageqy2.png

Thanks, but.....

Without MONGREL's email address and FULL headers, it could never be accepted as 'evidence'. Would you be willing to post that info?

Well I'm hesitant to give out his e-mail address, I wouldn't want him ending up spammed with shit.

Well I'm hesitant to give out his e-mail address, I wouldn't want him ending up spammed with shit.

There are worse things than spam.

Well I'm hesitant to give out his e-mail address, I wouldn't want him ending up spammed with shit.

There are worse things than spam.

Yeah, spam and all manner of unsavory and malicious things.

Willing to have it reposted here?

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/2127/mongomessageqy2.png

Thanks, but.....

Without MONGREL's email address and FULL headers, it could never be accepted as 'evidence'. Would you be willing to post that info?

I fail to understand, accepted as evidence? There is no policies or guidelines which are broken by canvassing by email. It's like near 200 users have voted, about half from one side and the other on the other side. We have just to be fools to think that that much people came to vote without being instructed to do so. He is the one who submitted the RfA and with that much peple being aware of it, there must have been some sort of massive canvassing. I am ready to bet that a RfA without any sort of canvassing will achieve no further than 20 votes. The Wikipedia rule on canvassing is hypocritical when most of the canvassings are done underground.

Nah, you shouldn't give out his e-mail address. Its not like this is a major crime prosecutable by law. Any Wikipediots would know that that was really from MONGO, and even if they dispute it, then they'd dispute the real thing too, so who cares? It's a good idea to protect people's privacy, unless its something really serious, and quite frankly this is a meaningless RfA, so it isn't anywhere near important enough.

Oh sure, having a KKK member in Wikipedia admin might be bad, but they had child abusers / paedophiles in there for a while, so is there really any difference? MONGO supported him because he is anti-conspiracy theory, which is one of MONGO's big things. I don't think that MONGO has really done anything wrong here.

After all, in this post we are doing the same thing as MONGO (sort of, except that we don't expect anyone who reads this to edit Wikipedia as a result), so its kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

Willing to have it reposted here?

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/2127/mongomessageqy2.png

Thanks, but.....

Without MONGREL's email address and FULL headers, it could never be accepted as 'evidence'. Would you be willing to post that info?

I fail to understand, accepted as evidence? There is no policies or guidelines which are broken by canvassing by email. It's like near 200 users have voted, about half from one side and the other on the other side. We have just to be fools to think that that much people came to vote without being instructed to do so. He is the one who submitted the RfA and with that much peple being aware of it, there must have been some sort of massive canvassing. I am ready to bet that a RfA without any sort of canvassing will achieve no further than 20 votes. The Wikipedia rule on canvassing is hypocritical when most of the canvassings are done underground.

I think the issue is that Mongo and Crackspot are on a desperate tear accusing others of SPAs, sockpuppets and especially canvassing. The complete email would further show them to be hypocrites.

Nah, you shouldn't give out his e-mail address. Its not like this is a major crime prosecutable by law. Any Wikipediots would know that that was really from MONGO, and even if they dispute it, then they'd dispute the real thing too, so who cares? It's a good idea to protect people's privacy, unless its something really serious, and quite frankly this is a meaningless RfA, so it isn't anywhere near important enough.

Oh sure, having a KKK member in Wikipedia admin might be bad, but they had child abusers / paedophiles in there for a while, so is there really any difference? MONGO supported him because he is anti-conspiracy theory, which is one of MONGO's big things. I don't think that MONGO has really done anything wrong here.

After all, in this post we are doing the same thing as MONGO (sort of, except that we don't expect anyone who reads this to edit Wikipedia as a result), so its kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

Blissy covered my point pretty well.

Willing to have it reposted here?

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/2127/mongomessageqy2.png

Thanks, but.....

Without MONGREL's email address and FULL headers, it could never be accepted as 'evidence'. Would you be willing to post that info?

I fail to understand, accepted as evidence? There is no policies or guidelines which are broken by canvassing by email. It's like near 200 users have voted, about half from one side and the other on the other side. We have just to be fools to think that that much people came to vote without being instructed to do so. He is the one who submitted the RfA and with that much peple being aware of it, there must have been some sort of massive canvassing. I am ready to bet that a RfA without any sort of canvassing will achieve no further than 20 votes. The Wikipedia rule on canvassing is hypocritical when most of the canvassings are done underground.

I think the issue is that Mongo and Crackspot are on a desperate tear accusing others of SPAs, sockpuppets and especially canvassing. The complete email would further show them to be hypocrites.

Who cares? The RfA has failed, it doesn't worth to start posting email coversations. If Crackspot is admin material by now he should have droped it rather than continuing. No self respecting person would accept to be an admin after so much controversies, that there is element of truth or not doesn't change anything. What Crackspot is doing now is just confirming that opposing him is the only right decision.

Beside, if you show them to be hypocrits it won't change anything. While banned someone accepted to post evidences for me, and I wanted to show how my banning was hypocritical when the evidences against me were a joke compared to what others were doing. I just changed my position on documenting hypocrasies and stuff like this and thought it doesn't matter. Now that we are on the other side they're the only to be blamed if something goes wrong, let them accuse they are hurting themselves they don't need your help.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

Derktar, you've gone so far as to let the email "out", I'd say that releasing the headers, etc. is not A Big Deal™, and it will confirm it for those of us that are a bit paranoid, and those on WP that say "Don't listen to those banned trolls at WR, they are insane!"

I'm guessing it is a @yahoo or @hotmail that MONGO uses for on wiki stuff anyway, so if he gets a bunch of spam or something, it's really no big deal. He just makes a new email for his on wiki email communications.

Releasing it at this points really makes no difference, except for maintaining a record of what happened.

I hate to put you in such a position of course, but I do think it is important to maintain a record of this sort of thing. That's one of the reasons I contribute here.

One interesting thing is that there is a person called Mr Gibblets who was banned, basically, for:

1) Voting SUPPORT to Crockspot, as a new user
2) Linking to Wikipediareview.com (here), and specifically to this post (criticised by MONGO)
3) Complaining about decisions on the admin noticeboard.

Banned indefinitely as a "Vandalism only account"

I thought it was odd that he linked to us here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151295119

This ultimately is what got him banned.

And if MrGibblets is someone who posts here, well, you're banned already, so unless you've got a second non-banned alias on Wikipedia (sock puppet), then would you mind saying who you are? If you don't yet have an account can you create one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattbroon got blocked for a week for daring to criticize another admin candidate by the odd name of Haemo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo. Apparently the best way to get rid of troublesome opposition or support tot hose some do or dont want tosee as admins is the block button. Democracy 2007 wikipedia style. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

One interesting thing is that there is a person called Mr Gibblets who was banned, basically, for:

1) Voting SUPPORT to Crockspot, as a new user
2) Linking to Wikipediareview.com (here), and specifically to this post (criticised by MONGO)
3) Complaining about decisions on the admin noticeboard.

Banned indefinitely as a "Vandalism only account"

I thought it was odd that he linked to us here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151295119

This ultimately is what got him banned.

And if MrGibblets is someone who posts here, well, you're banned already, so unless you've got a second non-banned alias on Wikipedia (sock puppet), then would you mind saying who you are? If you don't yet have an account can you create one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattbroon got blocked for a week for daring to criticize another admin candidate by the odd name of Haemo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haemo. Apparently the best way to get rid of troublesome opposition or support tot hose some do or dont want tosee as admins is the block button. Democracy 2007 wikipedia style. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Poor Mr Gibblets, Wikipedian style of democracy is that of a spiked ball bat and bad tempered thugs , enabled by a shit head dicks who belive in the lie of "Assume good faith" "No personal attack" and polite and constructive discussion. NO. IT's one of brutal thuggery, Darwinian harshness of "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, AND Rumbling gang war, not unlike the war in Chicago between the Capone boys and the Moran gang.

More reason to distroy, vandalize and discredit wikipedia at any and all opportunities. Wikipedia is a "clear and present danger" to the internet and the poisoning the mind of those, who don't know any better.

More reason to distroy, vandalize and discredit wikipedia at any and all opportunities. Wikipedia is a "clear and present danger" to the internet and the poisoning the mind of those, who don't know any better.

Vengence hardly makes things better, by doing this you will do the same which you condemn being done on Wikipedia.

Anyway, damn I have no life, I've passed those last two days reading this forum. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Vengeance and hate can often destroy a person from the inside.
Consider this a rare Yoda-like wisdom. (well it would be Yoda-like if backwords, I spoke it)
I think it's true though.

He denies it's him in his talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eleemosynary

I know human behavior and trust him.

Well I'm hesitant to give out his e-mail address, I wouldn't want him ending up spammed with shit.

mongomontana at yahoo.com or montanamongo at yahoo.com? He posts to wikien-l sometimes with them. It's no secret.

mongomontana at yahoo.com or montanamongo at yahoo.com? He posts to wikien-l sometimes with them. It's no secret.

Though some of his recent comments on-wiki have referred to wikien-l in the same tone he generally reserves for "attack sites"... he even mentioned it in the same sentence as WR at least once. What's next, will he demand a ban on linking to wikien-l archives? He doesn't seem to like any forum that he can't control by threatening to ban anybody who disagrees with him on it.

More reason to distroy, vandalize and discredit wikipedia at any and all opportunities. Wikipedia is a "clear and present danger" to the internet and the poisoning the mind of those, who don't know any better.

Vengence hardly makes things better, by doing this you will do the same which you condemn being done on Wikipedia.

Anyway, damn I have no life, I've passed those last two days reading this forum. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

You fail to understand, I don't care to make Wikipedia "better"....it's beyond repair. Only thing is to shut it down. The inbreed culture of lies, disrespect for people are to ingrained in it's leader and it's ruling class.

I don't care to make it better...All I want is to take it down, like an old building, full of rats and vermin and to damaged to repair.

OK, I did a little investigating. Assuming all the timestamps from the various servers are reporting on my screen accurately, relative to each other, this vectorsector post appears about five hours after my comment. But it does not associate with your name that I can see. About six o'clock the next morning is when vectorsector joins Digg, and associates with your name. I had a couple of people bug me on email to name you, but I just double checked, and I did not send it to anyone. But anyone who pays attention could have probably figured it out, with the one-week block info. I know it wasn't me, and no one has admitted to me that they did it. I think you've dealt with me enough to know that I'm not a liar. I'm thinking a WR troll is a distinct possibility. Some of the language looks familiar to one or two posters over there, and one of them admits on WR to being in contact with Bmedley. Those guys basically just like to see WP up in turmoil, I don't think they care as much about left vs. right. As long as people are at each other's throats, they're happy. Mr.Giblets was apparently from WR as well. - Crockspot 04:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Crockspot's admitted racism is our fault now. Well done, chums.

You don't destroy a building fool of people.

More reason to distroy, vandalize and discredit wikipedia at any and all opportunities. Wikipedia is a "clear and present danger" to the internet and the poisoning the mind of those, who don't know any better.

Vengence hardly makes things better, by doing this you will do the same which you condemn being done on Wikipedia.

Anyway, damn I have no life, I've passed those last two days reading this forum. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

You fail to understand, I don't care to make Wikipedia "better"....it's beyond repair. Only thing is to shut it down. The inbreed culture of lies, disrespect for people are to ingrained in it's leader and it's ruling class.

I don't care to make it better...All I want is to take it down, like an old building, full of rats and vermin and to damaged to repair.

OK, I did a little investigating. Assuming all the timestamps from the various servers are reporting on my screen accurately, relative to each other, this vectorsector post appears about five hours after my comment. But it does not associate with your name that I can see. About six o'clock the next morning is when vectorsector joins Digg, and associates with your name. I had a couple of people bug me on email to name you, but I just double checked, and I did not send it to anyone. But anyone who pays attention could have probably figured it out, with the one-week block info. I know it wasn't me, and no one has admitted to me that they did it. I think you've dealt with me enough to know that I'm not a liar. I'm thinking a WR troll is a distinct possibility. Some of the language looks familiar to one or two posters over there, and one of them admits on WR to being in contact with Bmedley. Those guys basically just like to see WP up in turmoil, I don't think they care as much about left vs. right. As long as people are at each other's throats, they're happy. Mr.Giblets was apparently from WR as well. - Crockspot 04:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Crockspot's admitted racism is our fault now. Well done, chums.

From the way he answers he probably knows he is saying nonesense.

I think the issue is that Mongo and Crackspot are on a desperate tear accusing others of SPAs, sockpuppets and especially canvassing. The complete email would further show them to be hypocrites.

Who cares? The RfA has failed, it doesn't worth to start posting email coversations. If Crackspot is admin material by now he should have droped it rather than continuing. No self respecting person would accept to be an admin after so much controversies, that there is element of truth or not doesn't change anything. What Crackspot is doing now is just confirming that opposing him is the only right decision.

Beside, if you show them to be hypocrits it won't change anything. While banned someone accepted to post evidences for me, and I wanted to show how my banning was hypocritical when the evidences against me were a joke compared to what others were doing. I just changed my position on documenting hypocrasies and stuff like this and thought it doesn't matter. Now that we are on the other side they're the only to be blamed if something goes wrong, let them accuse they are hurting themselves they don't need your help.

I agree with both these points, and an am worried about MONGREL. He's an angry man with lots 'o guns, and circumstances beyond his control are pushing him over the edge. I hope we don't read about him intentionally driving his pickup truck (with NRA, W04, a Yellow Troop Ribbon, and a Jesus Fish) in the rear window? ) into a crowd of peace protesters, or shooting up the local DNC office!

This post has been edited by FNORD23:

I'm tellin' ya, I take one day off, and look at all the fun I've missed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

I agree that MONGO is getting into some psychological trouble here. He's internalized his Wikipedia identity, and all the reputational and relationship-development baggage that goes with it, to a greater extent than I think I've ever seen at this point. He's gone beyond simply being desperate to get his adminship back to actually showing self-destructive "bridge-burning" tendencies - it's almost like a cry for help, but since we don't actually know who he is, we can't call his friends to have them set up an intervention...

Wait a minute, what the hell am I saying? MONGO couldn't possibly have any friends... he's MONGO, for shit's sake!

Anyway, I'll make the usual offer to the WP folks: If they want to send me the IP addresses of these people they think are WR members who are causing them so much emotional stress and discomfort, I'll be more than happy to check, so that I can tell them they're all full of swine excrement.

I'm tellin' ya, I take one day off, and look at all the fun I've missed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

I agree that MONGO is getting into some psychological trouble here. He's internalized his Wikipedia identity, and all the reputational and relationship-development baggage that goes with it, to a greater extent than I think I've ever seen at this point. He's gone beyond simply being desperate to get his adminship back to actually showing self-destructive "bridge-burning" tendencies - it's almost like a cry for help, but since we don't actually know who he is, we can't call his friends to have them set up an intervention...

Wait a minute, what the hell am I saying? MONGO couldn't possibly have any friends... he's MONGO, for shit's sake!

Anyway, I'll make the usual offer to the WP folks: If they want to send me the IP addresses of these people they think are WR members who are causing them so much emotional stress and discomfort, I'll be more than happy to check, so that I can tell them they're all full of swine excrement.

After MONGO gets banned, let's invite him here.

Frankly I don't care what MrGibblets is accused of, I like him. For the simple reason that I like his userpage before the banner ads were placed on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151281759

They are saying that Mr Gibblets = JoeHazelton.

I'm not seeing it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/Joehazelton

Actually Joehazelton is funny. Check out some of the revisions of his user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=110269804

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=94751319

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=91721958

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86354089

And of course his user page before the ban:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=74665568

Strange that they don't lock the user page. My user page got locked because I was trying to correct inaccuracies. This one isn't being locked. Perhaps they like a bit of humour.

So why isn't this guy on WR? We'd love to hear his point of view.

Even more amusing is that the IP ranges that "vandalised" his page got either no block or else a minor 24 hour block.

Perhaps they like sock puppets. I guess it gives the admins something to do.

78/83/11

Ending in just under two hours. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Perhaps a new role at WR and the wider internets should be to help with awareness of dangerous situations such as this developing on Wikipedia.

It's preposterous for Wikipedians to suggest that outsiders should have no "influence" on internal WP process.

BLP is purely the love child of Daniel Brandt and John Siegenthaler.

We shall educate Wikipedians on how to be good people.

Good idea?

If they can be taught, yes.
If they are SlimVirgin or Cyde or MONGO, etc, don't even make the attempt.

Frankly I don't care what MrGibblets is accused of, I like him. For the simple reason that I like his userpage before the banner ads were placed on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151281759

If he's banned, as an administrator would you still maintain this position?

I had many admin friends with who I was regularly conversing by email. After my banning I have become an heretic, they are now all ignoring me and not answering my emails. The arbitration has decided I'm the bad guy so they just followed thinking that I am someone under no circumstance should they have any relation with.

If he's banned, will you still like him?

If they can be taught, yes.
If they are SlimVirgin or Cyde or MONGO, etc, don't even make the attempt.

Enforced education can do wonders. Ever watch Dog Whisperer? Perhaps we should take that approach, and project calm, positive energy at Linda, Ben, and MONGO. If they get out of line, we'll do that Cesar Millan "sssst!" thing he does, this hiss/spit correction.

Linda: "WP:ATT is to BLP is to ignore my COI over Julian and Kadafi--"

WR: "SSSSSST! No, Linda. Ssst."

Linda: "Sorry, I'll no longer flagellate my fellow man over my own insecurities."





Cyde: "Erasing the userbox, erasing the userbox, no one can have fun--"

WR: "SSSSSST! No, Ben. Ssst."

Cyde: "Sorry, I will be a decent human being from now on."




MONGO: "TROLLS TROLLS STALKERS ED TROLLS BUSH 9/11 *foams at mouth*"

WR: "SSSSSST! No, MONGO. Ssst."

MONGO: "TROLLS TROLLS STALKERS ED TROLLS BUSH 9/11"



OK, in some cases it may take more positive reinforcement than others.

It is an interesting question: should your behaviour outside of a web site reflect how you are treated on that web site?

Ordinarily I'd say no - you should get a clean slate. I am sure that Nathan would agree with me that he found it absurd that if you were banned from LiveJournal, you could be banned from all of their linked sites just because you had been banned from the first, without doing anything new, and indeed without even investigating why you were banned.

But the issue is that what he has done outside of Wikipedia has demonstrated bias, and that once he had tools he might use that bias to influence. That's where there is an issue.

I mean if someone posted on Wikipedia Review they shouldn't be de-sysopped for it (like Everyking, Guanaco and Karmafist were), without question, nor should people be banned from Wikipedia simply for being members here. However, at the same time, when Karmafist said on Wikipedia Review that he had multiple sock puppets on Wikipedia for the purpose of committing vandalism (and said so in a public post!) then that was probably worthy of a ban. Of course, if that was a joke or something, then that's another matter, but it wasn't a joke.

There are cases, taken on a case by case situation, where what you do on other web sites is relevant. Not because of what the web site is, but because of its relevance to the web site you are using.

Take another example, Amorrow. No, Amorrow would not be banned from Wikipedia Review purely because he was banned from Wikipedia, nor even if they'd banned him for "stalking" (e.g. Skyring was banned for stalking, which was laughable, as he hadn't stalked at all). But if they'd shown us the evidence of the stalking, I think that I could say with confidence that we would have banned him quite quickly here. As it was, we had to wait until he'd committed the same crimes on Wikipedia Review before he got banned.

And if Crockspot came to Wikipedia Review, would we let him in? Possibly, but with derision. And I'm sure he'd end up banned pretty quickly. In theory, he might not. But realistically he probably would. Because his attitude in other places is one which wouldn't be acceptable here.

It is an interesting question: should your behaviour outside of a web site reflect how you are treated on that web site?

If off-site behavior is relevant then efforts to determine a users IRL identity is legitimate.

After MONGO gets banned, let's invite him here.

I'll call the engravers...

Seriously, though, how would MONGO's being here be any different from his fun little foray over to Encyclopedia Dramatica? He's an extreme-right dittohead whose primary motivation for involving himself with WP is to defend the Bush Administration. The fact that he works on articles about National Parks is nice, in the same sense of "it's nice that he has a hobby that doesn't involve shooting at people."

WR is far more civilized than MONGO, by orders of magnitude. IMO he wouldn't last more than a few hours in an environment in which he couldn't delete things that he found personally objectionable.

Wait a minute, I missed a whole page here, didn't I? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Actually, I think that MONGO would fit in. Indeed, Snowspinner would fit in too, if only we waited for him to be banned first. Snowspinner had his moments and was in some ways quite good here. It's just that we need to wait for him to be banned first.

Indeed, if SlimVirgin got banned, she'd be quite welcome here too. I can just imagine it:

"Yeah, all right, I admit it, I was lying my butt off the whole time. What a joke! But you know, having all of that power is just so fantastic, its like a roller coaster ride you don't want to get off"

One thing that actually concerns me is what happens if Wikipedia closes down? I guess that then Wikipedia Review closes down too. Or do we stay open so that we can sit around and talk about what was wrong with Wikipedia while it was still up? Or do we talk about other sites that offer the same kinds of problems?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RFA_Cro...y_influence.png

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/RFA_Crockspot_-_off_wiki_activity_influence.png)

I guess Wikipedians don't trust a racist admin, is what this says. Well done, Wikipedia.

Good image. Probably want to copy it somewhere that's not on Wikipedia in case the oversight patrol decide to get rid of it.

Crack+pot=Crackpot wrote:

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.

For those not familiar with racist American slang, 'Porch Monkey' has never been used for anything other than a pejoritive for African American.

Crackpot has sunk to a new low of dishonesty and desperation.

And he's pulling this 'defense' out of his hat 2-3 days after he was challanged about his racism, and several people mentioned 'Porch Monkey' ???!!!

He's dumber than I thought if he believes anybody will buy this song-and-dance, especially after it took him three days to think up !

LOL !

This post has been edited by FNORD23:

Good image. Probably want to copy it somewhere that's not on Wikipedia in case the oversight patrol decide to get rid of it.

Perhaps re-title as "Mongo's Vital Signs Crash and Fail."

I feel sorry for MONGO. For all that is said about MONGO, sure, he sounds like a complete and utter moron and fuckwit, but he sounds like a nice, happy and kind person, who just gets grumpy sometimes. I am sure that MONGO isn't a racist, and he didn't mean to support a racist. I bet that he's really upset about this whole thing, as it would hurt his whole chances of killing the conspiracy theory movement.

Yep, I want MONGO to get banned so that then he can post here. He can of course post here now, but I think he'd only be genuine once he's banned.

He's dumber than I thought if he believes anybody will buy this song-and-dance, especially after it took him three days to think up !

And when you consider that it takes about 5 seconds for someone to type the words "porch monkey" into a search engine, returning numerous pages of links to various racist and anti-racist websites and none whatsoever about child behavior, you have to figure that Mr. Crackpots doesn't think much of his fellow editors' intelligence, either.

I feel sorry for MONGO. For all that is said about MONGO, sure, he sounds like a complete and utter moron and fuckwit, but he sounds like a nice, happy and kind person, who just gets grumpy sometimes. I am sure that MONGO isn't a racist, and he didn't mean to support a racist. I bet that he's really upset about this whole thing, as it would hurt his whole chances of killing the conspiracy theory movement.

Yep, I want MONGO to get banned so that then he can post here. He can of course post here now, but I think he'd only be genuine once he's banned.

My opinion I think is as neutral as it gets because I have never interacted with the guy as far as I remember. I have checked his contributions this past days to form my opinion. My opinion is that he has been POV pushing and he is the kind of contributor who are to be blamed for the current situation of Wikipedia. He might be a good guy and I don't doubt it but from his contributions on the mainspace (I could care less of the talkpages, it is the mainspace which speak on whatever or not someone is POV pushing) he is hurting the project.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

And now, a MONGO Witch Hunt. Brought to you by... well... MONGO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ser:NuclearUmpf

He thinks SevenofDiamonds is NuclearUmpf come back to haunt him!

He's accused Seven of harassing him before, but Theresa Knott stopped their squabbling... until now.

And now, a MONGO Witch Hunt. Brought to you by... well... MONGO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ser:NuclearUmpf

He thinks SevenofDiamonds is NuclearUmpf come back to haunt him!

He's accused Seven of harassing him before, but Theresa Knott stopped their squabbling... until now.

To give credit to MONGO, some of the evidences are interesting, the match is plausible.

And now, a MONGO Witch Hunt. Brought to you by... well... MONGO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ser:NuclearUmpf

He thinks SevenofDiamonds is NuclearUmpf come back to haunt him!

He's accused Seven of harassing him before, but Theresa Knott stopped their squabbling... until now.

You know this shit just gets tiresome. Not to mention it is highly unedifying. PseudonymousBastard is actually SomeOtherFuck, I ran a CheckBullshit on him and he is the same as SneakyAsshole and YetAnotherJerkOff . Right, I'd trust you people to have intellectual integrity.

Just require editors to use real verified names and stop this nonsense.

Frankly I don't care what MrGibblets is accused of, I like him. For the simple reason that I like his userpage before the banner ads were placed on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151281759

If he's banned, as an administrator would you still maintain this position?

I had many admin friends with who I was regularly conversing by email. After my banning I have become an heretic, they are now all ignoring me and not answering my emails. The arbitration has decided I'm the bad guy so they just followed thinking that I am someone under no circumstance should they have any relation with.

If he's banned, will you still like him?

I made the judgement on nothing else but liking his userpage.

OK, anyone who has made several homophobic, racist, or comments like "VVAW hippie rejects" should have their adminship taken away. That is classic conservative mindset, and I did not know about homophobic admins, he might be the first. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

All right, I've been reading WR for a couple of months now, and I still don't understand why you hang out here. What's the point? Once you've been banned at a site like Wikipedia, why not just move on and edit somewhere else? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time? I mean, how long can you hash and rehash and explain and re-explain how that Anti-Semite charge that someone brought against you on a site that you are no longer affiliated with is rubbish? It just seems pointless.

And SlimVirgin -- how can you possibly believe that in real life she's some sort of spy or ex-spy? Have you all been spending too much time over at the Prisonplanet.com site? Get real folks, and get over it.

~~~~The Mort

All right, I've been reading WR for a couple of months now, and I still don't understand why you hang out here. What's the point? Once you've been banned at a site like Wikipedia, why not just move on and edit somewhere else? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time? I mean, how long can you hash and rehash and explain and re-explain how that Anti-Semite charge that someone brought against you on a site that you are no longer affiliated with is rubbish? It just seems pointless.

And SlimVirgin -- how can you possibly believe that in real life she's some sort of spy or ex-spy? Have you all been spending too much time over at the Prisonplanet.com site? Get real folks, and get over it.

1. A bunch of us have never been banned from Wikipedia, at least that's what I've heard.
2. Who reads PrisonPlanet.com? It's crap. Anything decent that gets posted there is available elsewhere from more realiable sources.
3. I don't think that SlimVirgin is a spy, and many others on WR I think have said they don't believe it either.
4. If WR is so useless why Mort do you waste your time telling us so?

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

All right, I've been reading WR for a couple of months now, and I still don't understand why you hang out here. What's the point? Once you've been banned at a site like Wikipedia, why not just move on and edit somewhere else? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time? I mean, how long can you hash and rehash and explain and re-explain how that Anti-Semite charge that someone brought against you on a site that you are no longer affiliated with is rubbish? It just seems pointless.

You're oversimplifying, Morton. It's a form of "trolling," I'm sorry to say - this is actually the same tactic MONGO used on Wikiabuse.com...

But since you and I go way back and all, I'll just say this: Even if you completely dismiss the idea that people here are legitimately concerned with the negative effects Wikipedia has on culture, society, politics, and all sorts of other things - and that they want to do something about it - the fact is, there's money involved. Wikipedia threatens to put all sorts of traditional media entities, including people, out of business, and its grasp so far exceeds its reach that this can't possibly be seen as a good thing. It simply isn't as good as what it's trying to replace, by any objective standard.

First off, what alternative is there to Wikipedia? There doesn't seem to be any viable alternative out there.

Secondly, if it was just a whinge about being banned, then I would have made that whinge, maybe 3 or 4 posts to clarify it, and that's it. Most of this has nothing to do with that.

All right, I've been reading WR for a couple of months now, and I still don't understand why you hang out here. What's the point? Once you've been banned at a site like Wikipedia, why not just move on and edit somewhere else? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time? I mean, how long can you hash and rehash and explain and re-explain how that Anti-Semite charge that someone brought against you on a site that you are no longer affiliated with is rubbish? It just seems pointless.

You're oversimplifying, Morton. It's a form of "trolling," I'm sorry to say - this is actually the same tactic MONGO used on Wikiabuse.com...

But since you and I go way back and all, I'll just say this: Even if you completely dismiss the idea that people here are legitimately concerned with the negative effects Wikipedia has on culture, society, politics, and all sorts of other things - and that they want to do something about it - the fact is, there's money involved. Wikipedia threatens to put all sorts of traditional media entities, including people, out of business, and its grasp so far exceeds its reach that this can't possibly be seen as a good thing. It simply isn't as good as what it's trying to replace, by any objective standard.

Are you saying I am trolling? Huh. I never thought that I was trolling.

Now MONGO goons are removing legitimate talk page posts by others, wtf?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151771489

Will someone please RVV Pro's flagrant trolling? You don't get to manipulate others' comments like that. EVER. He functionally changed the content of Smedley's posting, and then HID the evidence behind a series of trivial other edits. Dirty fucker!

Smedley called him on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151771610

I vote for this as the fishiest Request for Adminship EVER!

I vote for this as the fishiest Request for Adminship EVER!

Me too.

That gets my vote.

Loooky here !

Bmedley posted a mysterious message to Crock'oShit !

Jeeez ! That's not very nice ! LOL !

I wonder who that could from ? An 'Old friend' ? Hmmmmmm.

Rubbing poor Crackman's tear stained face into the bloody offal-covered killing-floor that was his RFAr!

I wonder how Bmedley knew to look for GOP Kool-Aid Slurping, AWOLbush Worshipping 'Porch Cracker's' racist homophobic posts on CU, thus sinking the RFAr of that worthless racist homophobic reich-wing waterboy, someone not much different than the other racist homophobes that make up about 50% of the GOP?

I wonder who Andy is ?

Could it be.....

Andy Stephenson

The voter rights activist? The man who dedicated his life to fighting for democracy, so that every vote could count ? (no wonder the GOP and CU scum were happy when he died! They hate voter's rights and Democracy!) The man who the Fascist American Talibaners on Conservative Underground and Free Republic hounded and harassed on his deathbed, holding up donations needed for a possible life-saving surgery, by 'donating' money to the Paypal surgery account containing 10,000's of dollars for Andy's surgery, then calling their credit card companies claiming they never donated - alleging fraud - so the account was locked for days - possibly KILLING him ? Not to mention mocking his sexuality because they're so insecure in their's.

The ones who later went to great lengths to get Andy's Wikipedia article deleted because it documented his work, and their 'crimes' ?

Yeah - that's who.

Payback's a bitch, assholes.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/RFA_Crockspot_-_off_wiki_activity_influence.png)

This post has been edited by FNORD23:

Interesting, FNORD23. Its a pity that we can't prove it. Sounds plausible though.

Interesting, FNORD23. Its a pity that we can't prove it. Sounds plausible though.

There are people who have lots of documentation. Names and dates. One prominent writer should have another piece coming out on it.

RIP Andy Stephenson

Losing it in a big way since his boy Crockspot's RFA went down

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151885276

I think the bottom line is this, at one stage MONGO was "somebody", then he was "that guy who was somebody", now he's just seen as a crank by an every increasing body of editors - it frustrates him that people don't just jump at his command.

Losing it in a big way since his boy Crockspot's RFA went down

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151885276

I think the bottom line is this, at one stage MONGO was "somebody", then he was "that guy who was somebody", now he's just seen as a crank by an every increasing body of editors - it frustrates him that people don't just jump at his command.

Seems like ever since Nuclear, Fairness And Accuracy For All and others helped get him deadminned after he went after Seabchan, that Team America has been getting more and more desperate for every 'win'. The problem is that unlike some cabals (Slim, Jay, et al), Team America really has no friends. Their views are minority views in opposition to virtually everyone on Wikipedia, and everyone that isn't a bigot redneck. It's simply that outside of their immediate circle of users, hardly anyone likes them. They're abrasive, rude, and are utterly shameless about gaming rules and systems. They attract, provoke, and prolong fights constantly, and all to make sure that their conservative American right-wing views are represented on Wikipedia.

Sure, other groups POV push like mad, but they're at least tactful, and nice about it even if it's a fake niceness. Team America is just vicious and mean about everything. Especially MONGO and Tim Beatty. Thats why they have virtually no support on anything ever. If they can't overpower a debate or !vote with their own numbers, they lose. Their only way to win has been from reading these absurd RFARs and RFAs is to systematically provoke each and everyone of their foes to get banned. They don't win from policy, they don't win from content, because they never ever can. No one gives a shit about NPOV conservative views, since those really are minority views that no one gives a shit about. Thats why they cried and made Conservapedia. They bully their way to victory, and if that fails, go berserk to get people blocked.

Oh well. MONGO in particular, each time he 'loses', does this. Stamp his foot, make a scene. Any editor that writes things like "don't you dare" or uses his condescending tone should have been punted a long time ago. If he hadn't ingratiated himself with just enough clueless admins long ago, he would have been blocked in late 2005 to early 2006.

Mongo, your a loser. You will never regain any credibility. You have discredited your juvenile politics on WP on a level equal to what your President has done on the world stage. If you quit no one will miss you. The more skilled players of WP:RPG will go on as if you never existed. Almost everyone on on WP agrees with this but can't say so because they lack free expression.

There. I said it.

Mongo, your a loser. You will never regain any credibility. You have discredited your juvenile politics on WP on a level equal to what your President has done on the world stage. If you quit no one will miss you. The more skilled players of WP:RPG will go on as if you never existed. Almost everyone on on WP agrees with this but can't say so because they lack free expression.

There. I said it.

...and that's the straight talk express!

CRAP ! I got Bmedley in trouble ! He sent me a nasty email too. Those black-helicopter seeing, NWO-fearing, GOP Kool-Aid slurping, AWOLbush-is-the-new-messiah-worshiipping, Tin Foil Hat-wearing Cabalists need to get their CIA implanted microchips changed, or somethin'. Crackpot thinks that *I* am Bmedley ! LOL ! They have tide charts ! Or flow charts ! They made them themselves ! LOL !

They are sounding more and MORE like the 9/11 truthers they abhor with their charts and nebulous hare-brained theories !

It's a mass-meltdown !

I think they're come to grips with the fact that they will be COMPLETELY out of power in this country in 08, and AWOLbush and his quisling's 'legacy' is already written in stone as the failed criminal enterprise that it is.

POOR SAPS !

LOL !

I encourage these American Talibaners to GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY in Nov 08.

We've already set up a special place for them.....

"ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

http://www.christianexodus.com/

Or they can move en masse to Iraq - to help fight for the 'freedom of the Iraqi people' who these traitorous Neocons care MORE about than they do Americans.

</rant off>

This post has been edited by FNORD23:

"ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

http://www.christianexodus.com/

As the text above says, the official address of the site in question is christianexodus.org, so why did you link to christianexodus.com? (They both seem to go to the same place, but the .org address is more proper given that it's a noncommercial project.)

"ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

http://www.christianexodus.com/

As the text above says, the official address of the site in question is christianexodus.org, so why did you link to christianexodus.com? (They both seem to go to the same place, but the .org address is more proper given that it's a noncommercial project.)

I Googled it, and it came up .com. I copied the URL and the text from the .com site. The .com site text says .org.

Either that or Michael_Peter_Woroniecki's mind control made me do it.

"ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

http://www.christianexodus.com/

As the text above says, the official address of the site in question is christianexodus.org, so why did you link to christianexodus.com? (They both seem to go to the same place, but the .org address is more proper given that it's a noncommercial project.)

(IMG:http://www.swiftwatermedia.com/image021.jpg) "PICKY, PICKY, PICKY!"

Mongo, your a loser. You will never regain any credibility. You have discredited your juvenile politics on WP on a level equal to what your President has done on the world stage. If you quit no one will miss you. The more skilled players of WP:RPG will go on as if you never existed. Almost everyone on on WP agrees with this but can't say so because they lack free expression.

There. I said it.

So right. So so right. I couldn't have said it better myself...

Meanwhile, over at Thatcher131's talk page:

Fnord23/FAAFA is bragging over at WR that he fed the archived CU links to Bmedley Sutler to post in my RfA, to disrupt and torpedo my RfA as payback for the deletion of the Andy Stephenson article. I tend to believe this, because Bmedley asked me "Who's Andy?" today, and if he had trolled through my several year 10k+ post archive at CU to pick out a few choice ones, he would already know who Andy was. I'm sure there's nothing that can be done at this point, but it really sucks, and it sucks hard. - Crockspot 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Political stuff is fine, but it belongs in the lounge, not in the bureaucracy thread.

Political stuff is fine, but it belongs in the lounge, not in the bureaucracy thread.

The Lounge if cooler heads are maintained, but the Tarpit if not. But, yes, I agree with you, Bliss.

I don't mind talking about political and social biases influencing WP and violating its supposed NPOV policy (as well as other policies) as long as political debates are taken elsewhere.

...you wouldn't know this,...

Got that right.

I have moved the off-topic posts to the Tar Pit. If I have missed any, it is not due to favoritism, but simple error. PM me or any moderator to move others or lobby to get them un-moved.

moved

This post has been edited by FNORD23:

Good move, Gomi. FNORD, note that that section is in a different sub-thread now.

New thread where it went:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=11922

Are you saying I am trolling? Huh. I never thought that I was trolling.

No, not you! Morton was doing the "trolling" there, not you.

I should just make a point of never using that word anyway...

As the text above says, the official address of the site in question is christianexodus.org, so why did you link to christianexodus.com? (They both seem to go to the same place, but the .org address is more proper given that it's a noncommercial project.)

They make no claim to being non-commercial... They don't even claim to be a non-profit, from what I can tell. I'd say the whole thing is a scam, but I've met people who are so far out there they'd probably go for the idea in spite of its high level of awfulness.

ChristianExodus.org needs your help to purchase the literature, radio equipment, signage and website development necessary to succeed in electing Christian paleo-conservatives in South Carolina. CE needs $3.85 per month from you. That's it! For less than the cost of a combo meal at McDonalds you will meet the $45/year commitment to become a Supporting Member. You'll then receive all the benefits of Supporting Membership. Please don't delay!

Click the link below, and have $3.85 charged to a credit card or bank account automatically each month. The information you supply PayPal is NOT shared with Christian Exodus; it is kept completely secure and confidential by PayPal.

Apparently the carrot here is that "supporting members" (and higher) get to vote on various things. This is important in case you're part of the "movement" and you have a really strong preference for, say, hanging of non-Christians, as opposed to the currently "in vogue" method of death by firing squad.

Apparently the carrot here is that "supporting members" (and higher) get to vote on various things. This is important in case you're part of the "movement" and you have a really strong preference for, say, hanging of non-Christians, as opposed to the currently "in vogue" method of death by firing squad.

Tsk-tsk! Stoning is the only biblically approved method of capital punishment, silly!

So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians."

An Invitation to Stoning - Reason magazine

Apparently the carrot here is that "supporting members" (and higher) get to vote on various things. This is important in case you're part of the "movement" and you have a really strong preference for, say, hanging of non-Christians, as opposed to the currently "in vogue" method of death by firing squad.

Tsk-tsk! Stoning is the only biblically approved method of capital punishment, silly!

I figure a firing squad isn't so different from stoning. The rocks are just faster.

He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

This RfA has closed, by the way. He lost.

This RfA has closed, by the way. He lost.

Crackpot added a 'post mortem'. He blamed his loss on ME rather than his own homophobia, racism, dishonesty and stupidity!

The homophobia and racism are self evident. The dishonesty - making up that cockamamie story about 'porch monkey' (and Bear's outfit). The stupidity - thinking that people would believe it. (And bragging on his userpage how he posts on Conservative Underground, a forum only a tiny bit less extreme than Stormfront and actually LINKING to it)

He's got his hair-shirt back on too. He's sees himself as the last stalwart fending off the commie onslaught or some overly dramatic tripe.

(IMG:http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.071105Y.jpg)

RIP Andy Stephenson

The virtuous life and ugly death of Andy Stephenson




This post has been edited by FNORD23:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=152453721

Are we about to see an attempt at bypassing process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=152453721

Are we about to see an attempt at bypassing process?

No way that's going to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=152453721

Are we about to see an attempt at bypassing process?

No way that's going to happen.

Someone is arguing on the closing admin's page that the whole RFA was out-of-process cause Crackpine's racism and homophobia were entered into evidence!

I believe that a significant number of the opposition votes in this request for adminship resulted from the introduction of off-wiki statements largely unrelated to Wikipedia or its editors for the apparent purpose of disparaging the candidate's moral character.

It ain't gonna happen Crookpunt

Maybe he can run for Admin on CU where their head moderator 'wishes he had a slave' and applauded the actions of Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan.



This post has been edited by FNORD23:

Just require editors to use real verified names and stop this nonsense.

That's not realistic. There are plenty of articles that people would be afraid to edit honestly if their real names were associated. I'm not talking about just embarassment ("Uhm, no, I, uh, don't have any special interest in sex with ewes, despite all my edits"), either. People can lose their jobs for editing during their lunch hour, blowing the whistle on their company, or just getting involved in anything the company doesn't want associated with them, including ewe sex.

There really is a point to having anonymity on Wikipedia. The problem is that we don't have it. Instead, we have the worst of both worlds, where you're not truly anonymous nor truly public. If Jimbo really wanted his editors to be anonymous, he's allow and even encourage the use of TOR. He'd likewise change logged-in sessions to be maintained only by URL remapping, not a cookie.

Al

I mean, recall that SlimVirgin's primary criticism of Wikipedia Review is that:

1) We stalk and harass people (Especially her!)
2) This is a neo-nazi front, and we are all racists

I just find it interesting, anyway. Perhaps poor SV didn't realise that she was accidentally supporting a racist. Perhaps once she finds out she'll change her vote. Let's wait.

You've got to stop looking for logic and reason in what is basically an emotional attack she's making against all of Wikipedia Review, and also not take it personally. She just hates it here, and she has a reason: people here hate her and talk trash about her. I'm not saying they aren't justified, but forevermore she's going to say things about this site.

If she called you a zebra, would you feel justified to prove you weren't a zebra? So if you aren't a neo-nazi, then just be cool, and eventually, she'll run out of breath, and wind up looking foolish. This isn't a neo-nazi site and anyone with eyes can see that.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

If Wikipedia had consistent policies and procedures, it could tolerate a political extremist as an administrator. However, that's not the case. Wikipedia has no rules, only whims. In such an environment, putting a(nother) wingnut into the ranks of its administration is a big problem.

That's not realistic. There are plenty of articles that people would be afraid to edit honestly if their real names were associated. I'm not talking about just embarassment ("Uhm, no, I, uh, don't have any special interest in sex with ewes, despite all my edits"), either. People can lose their jobs for editing during their lunch hour, blowing the whistle on their company, or just getting involved in anything the company doesn't want associated with them, including ewe sex.

There really is a point to having anonymity on Wikipedia. The problem is that we don't have it. Instead, we have the worst of both worlds, where you're not truly anonymous nor truly public. If Jimbo really wanted his editors to be anonymous, he's allow and even encourage the use of TOR. He'd likewise change logged-in sessions to be maintained only by URL remapping, not a cookie.

I agree with that.

I was investigating the Peter Falconio disappearance as part of my work, and had inside knowledge as to what was really going on. I knew that the whole thing was a fake, that they didn't actually know who'd done it (or indeed if he was dead), but were commanded by the Federal Government (right from the Prime Minister's office) to prosecute *someone* and to avoid a repeat of the Lindy Chamberlain scandal. Indeed, on such cases, it is a federal policy. Work in government in the right departments and you learn this. We would have all lost our jobs if we'd failed to prosecute Bradley John Murdoch. Not because he was guilty, but just because we needed someone to put away. Of course, if he actually was guilty, that was a bonus, but that was rather irrelevant. All we needed to do was to put him away. We had police who were compliant, lawyers, judges, the whole lot. Everyone went along with it, because they were all trying to avoid getting fired, and having collective egg on their faces.

Now, while I was editing that article, I wasn't doing anything illegal, but I would have not only been fired, but black banned from the entire government sector, and basically been unemployable. I mean nowadays I can admit that that is how I got that inside knowledge, because I quit there, but at the time, that was terribly much against what I was employed to do. If I was forced to use my real name while editing, I wouldn't have even considered doing it. And Longhair knew that I had that inside knowledge, which is why he let me edit there, even though I was banned at the time. They wanted that inside knowledge.

Does Wikipedia want truth, or do they want to have truth that you aren't going to get unfairly fired for presenting?

look like he might go for it -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=154020363

Good catch Robert Roberts!

So Crockspot will try to get directly sysopped without getting enough votes by going through Arb Com, when he tries to get Bmedley banned.

Interesting scenario.

look like he might go for it -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=154020363

C'mon Crackspit you brave little terrier. Give it another go. Do it for your President and your Country! Do it for the boys out in Iraq. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

So... what exactly will they do when someone just brings it up again in 3-6 months?

look like he might go for it -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=154020363

C'mon Crackspit you brave little terrier. Give it another go. Do it for your President and your Country! Do it for the boys out in Iraq. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Do it for white middle class America.

look like he might go for it -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=154020363

C'mon Crackspit you brave little terrier. Give it another go. Do it for your President and your Country! Do it for the boys out in Iraq. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Do it for white middle class America.

Do it for yet another 1-liner post.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

look like he might go for it -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=154020363

C'mon Crackspit you brave little terrier. Give it another go. Do it for your President and your Country! Do it for the boys out in Iraq. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Do it for white middle class America.

Do it for yet another 1-liner post.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

would you rather a 5,000 line post?

If Bmedley needs to be resolved by arbcom, I would rather it be a standalone case between the two of us, and I would intend to open up what happened at my RfA, and request that I be immediately sysopped as one of the remedies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=153984283

If Bmedley needs to be resolved by arbcom, I would rather it be a standalone case between the two of us, and I would intend to open up what happened at my RfA, and request that I be immediately sysopped as one of the remedies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=153984283

Someone is dreaming. One should remember what Crockspot wrote on CU, if you can't I recommending reading again the first post in this thread.

Do it for Team America, Crocker!

FORUM Image

Crockspot's just called Don Murphy an "asshole" in the afd debate to remove Murphy biography. Which Don Murphy as User:ColScott will no doubt be observing.

Do they do this kind of thing at Who's Who or Encyclopedia Britannica?

My Favorite Barnstar Ever —

Pasteed by Crockspot on SlimVirgin:

[[image:Purple Star.png|80px]]

For suffering the jockstrap slings and
suction-cup arrows of outrageous abuse.

[[User:Crockspot|Crockspot]]
21:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Crockspot's just called Don Murphy an "asshole" in the afd debate to remove Murphy biography.

Ha, isn't this the same guy that wanted his RFA courtesy blanked because of BLP violations concerning things that he actually stated?

edit: actually, he blanked it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Crockspot's just called Don Murphy an "asshole" in the afd debate to remove Murphy biography.

Ha, isn't this the same guy that wanted his RFA courtesy blanked because of BLP violations concerning things that he actually stated?

edit: actually, he blanked it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Crockspot is just a wiki toady now...

Crockspot's just called Don Murphy an "asshole" in the afd debate to remove Murphy biography. Which Don Murphy as User:ColScott will no doubt be observing.

Do they do this kind of thing at Who's Who or Encyclopedia Britannica?

Possibly on occasion in the staffroom, during editorial meetings, or around the water cooler at the office... the difference is that it's not seen by the public. I know in the places I've worked it's not that uncommon for somebody to wave around a particularly wacky-seeming letter from somebody who's pissed off at the company for some reason and shoot the breeze about "Look what this asshole is ranting about now!" None of the places I've worked at have been encyclopedia publishers, but I have no reason to believe their office atmosphere is notably different in this regard.