Crockspot RfA, Unsuccessful Options

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: Wed 15th August 2007, 2:51am

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: Wed 15th August 2007, 3:30am

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: Wed 15th August 2007, 3:37am

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: Wed 15th August 2007, 6:04am

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.

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: Wed 15th August 2007, 3:56pm