Crockspot RfA, Unsuccessful Options

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?

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



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: Thu 16th August 2007, 6:45pm

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: Thu 16th August 2007, 7:53pm

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.