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: