As of August 2007, discussions older than five days are archived by MiszaBot III. See archive box for previous discussions.

Template:Archive box collapsible

You alluded in your RfA that you've gotten a lot more civil "since MONGO 2". I went back and scanned contributions there, and really, you were one of the most clear headed and polite responders. Saying stuff like this [1] is really constructive. Civility shouldn't be an issue for you. Good luck. SchmuckyTheCat

Jack S. Bernstein appears to be an interested party. Of course, WP:BLP/N should be adhered to, and, as I explained to a disgruntled editor on my talk page, you did nothing wrong, but Bernstein's conflict of interest should be recognized in future editing disputes on the page. I've rewritten the page to fully source and NPOV the controversial claims; can you spotcheck it to ensure that it complies with WP:BLP/N? -- THF 08:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so he is associated with the making of the film. This sounds like it could be kicked over to WP:COIN. I'll let them know. - Crockspot 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanatory comment, it's much appreciated. I do not believe you're evil at all. As you may have noticed, the irritating number (2? 3?) of !votes in which I am quoted led me to change to abstention, which is where I'm going to stay for the rest of your RfA. Good luck. —AldeBaer 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here. Answer when you get a chance, if you don't mind. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not trying to bait you; if you aren't comfortable speaking further on-Wiki, then so be it. I have my e-mail turned off precisely because I don't like giving away personal info that someone could attempt to exploit later, so I can certainly sympathize with your feelings here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, if you're getting exhausted and punchy like you said, remember that you're allowed to step away from the keyboard for a couple of hours to clear your head. Nothing on Wikipedia is important enough to cause yourself real-world problems. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good advice. I'm out for a while. - Crockspot 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The way you have composed yourself while all of that bullshit has been going on in your RfA has been quite admirable. It is a horrible display of the self-righteousness practiced by some members of the left. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Pablo.--Mantanmoreland 02:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Pablo though I think it's not just a left attack, more like wiki-lawyers and general self-righteousness (which is what we accuse the right of - irony there) and I'm way on the left (by US standards which has the neutral more to the right than in many places). My vote is pulled as 1) I can't decide any more amidst the vitriol. 2) They won't let me vote anyway. Personally though as I have already told you, I supported you. Editors do not a have to be neutral - just edits. Besides, I need someone to counter balance me ;-). Watch out for trolls! 24.7.91.244 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got guts for being so patient with this onslaught. I'd let the thing die it's own death and then decide if you want to have it deleted.--MONGO 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way...you'll probably end up doing better than I did here...not much consolation, but it appears you have more of the community's trust than I do...maybe if you get a less controversial editor to nominate you in a few months or more, you'll do a lot better.--MONGO 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly. You don't deserve this kind of abuse. --rogerd 04:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's downright abusive. 24.7.91.244 08:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming to this page to give you a purple star barnstar ... but I see someone else had the same idea a day earlier. So let me just second it. Thank you for trying to stay civil and soldier on despite what must be a very trying time. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've never seen you around Wikipedia before (we run in different circles I suppose), but I voted a support for you before this RfA just up and up imploded in your hands. Its too bad what happened, and its sickening to see this thing happening on Wikipedia. I'm an admin myself, and have been for nearly 2 years, but really it isn't as big of a deal as people would make it out to be (especially those involved in the sock-puppetry in your RfA). Don't let this discourage you, rather keep on doing what you do best. You gained a lot of respect from me for your handling of this volatile situation with as much class as possible, bearing in mind the attacks you were under. By the way though I don't agree with your choice of words off-wiki that has caused a lot of this controversy, but its ancient history, especially on the World Wide Web. This was the most appropriate barnstar I could find.

The Resilient Barnstar

"...please be more clear ast to how slashed tires on GOP poll watcher vans keep people from voting. Kgrr 22:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you missed the "voters" part right before the "poll watchers" part... - Crockspot 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

--The duty of Poll watchers is, clearly, to watch and examine other voters and trying to deny their right to cast a vote based upon the watchers and their party's own narrow views, interpretation of law and attempts to disenfranchise eligible certain citizens of their constitutional right to vote; tactics that go hand-in-hand with vote caging, etc. The poll watchers absence most probably would engender more legitimate people being able to vote as opposed to 'keeping (i.e. preventing) people from voting'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.31.130 (talk • contribs)

• This was from a while back, but I believe the edits I made in response quoted the judge, telling the defendants that they had kept people from voting by disabling the vehicles. If I remember correctly, the watchers were to be dropped off first thing, then the vans were going to shuttle voters the rest of the day. Your theory sounds a bit like original research. - Crockspot 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it has turned out the way it has; lots of anger and heat and very little that is positive to take away from it. It must feel very unfair to get so many opposes for some comments on another project. In a way you are being punished for your honesty in linking your two areas of internet life the way you have. I just wanted to say that whatever happens I really hope you won't be too discouraged; as I said I have been impressed with a lot of what I've seen you do on here. Although I think we differ on some philosophical issues, I believe the project thrives from having good people of different views who can work together effectively and harmoniously. I won't award you a barnstar although I agree with the sentiment behind those you have been awarded. Hang in there, and best wishes --John 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking of that saying: The beatings will continue until morale improves. I did get a lot of support, and it's nice to know that a lot of people appreciated the work I did, and that it wasn't all a complete waste of time. Unfortunately, that capital is worthless now. I have little choice but to start over from scratch with a new account that not even my closest friends will know. - Crockspot 03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You haven't done anything wrong. --Mantanmoreland 03:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I'll be able to do anything useful. This will get dragged out on every dispute. - Crockspot 03:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all liklihood, yes. This place rarely forgives and never forgets. There are some who do AGF if they see "improvements"...but what you need to do now is about 6 months of "community service" at a level of perfection and non-bias that no human being is capable of.--MONGO 04:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well hell, I already picked out a cool name and everything. - Crockspot 04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HUm...I always thought User:Gorgo as played by King Kong Bundy in the movie Moving (film) would be a great choice if I hadn't been able to use MONGO.--MONGO 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this RfA has no appeared on wikiscanner and is becong newsworthy in and of itself, I wanted to give you a Current Events Barnstar - for being the news, however that's not what it is for. I despise your politics, abhor some of your personal views, but admire you for some recent conflict resolution work before the RfA. I am utterly disgusted at the hatchet job being mounted against you. Wiki needs to break new policy ground in deciding this. You have done very well in some very hot situations dealing with fighting editors, and have shown incredible restraint given the abuse being dished out. On that measure alone, you have shown patience (compared to the level of aggro) which merits *trust*. Anyone who can bear that onslaught deserves the rust that is the ball and chain of admining. I have to WP:AGF Rcnet 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm humbled that you logged in just for me. - Crockspot 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see you being ganged up on.

I like having correspondents who disagree with me who are willing and able to engage in a civil dialogue on the issues I disagree with. Talking only with those one agrees with is far less likely to help one find weaknesses in one's own views.

As I said when I voiced my support I haven't seen any evidence you injected your POV into article space; I have a POV, and I think I do a pretty good job of refraining from injecting it into article space. I have no problem believing those one the right can do so too.

I haven't seen any evidence you yourself said anything racist, or homophobic.

My contact with you has been limited. But I admire that you were willing to acknowledge mistakes, and I admire that you haven't lost your cool.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Crockspot 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your RfA. I am afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Good luck with future endeavours. :-) --Deskana (banana) 18:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry your RFA failed. Try again soon! Politics rule 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let it bring you down. —AldeBaer 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it's only castles burning. - Crockspot 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just find someone who's turning, and you will come around. (we can't be that right wing if we all like Neil) You didn't deserve the crap you subjected to. --rogerd 19:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This time I won't let the fact that you've already gotten plenty of these stop me from giving you another.

I appreciate your honest answer. We have all said things that we have either regretted or have had taken wrongly. However, you need to know where I'm coming from.

I grew up in a rural community. I had a great interest in science and technology, in contrast to almost all of my peers. I am entirely heterosexual, but my voice is quite high for a male and I never had great strength or physical dexterity. As a teen, I was constantly taunted with homophobic slurs such as those that you have used, and some of the taunts became physical abuse from which I wear a facial scar to this day. I will never forget or forgive that behavior, and I will do everything in my power to see that anyone who stoops to using such disgusting insults is known far and wide for what they have said.

I have seen how the testosterone-fueled joshin' among people who use the terms you have chosen can so quickly escalate, and from where I stand, I am hard pressed to see any deeper flaw. ←Ben^B4 19:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm sorry you had to go through all that, and had those past traumas stirred up by my comments. You're right, I shouldn't encourage the malicious behavior of others by using the language. - Crockspot 19:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't easy, but one sock is exposed as the ban evader and I'll try and take care of another one shortly...soon as I collect the diffs. Who do these people think they are fooling I wonder?--MONGO 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good sleuthing. My recommendation is to keep your own hands as clean as possible in dealing with these issues. Do the investigating, analysis, and reporting, and less direct engagement. That will give less of an excuse for handwringing on the part of others. - Crockspot 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a strange fate we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing... such a little thing... an RFA... my condolences, and I wish you very good luck and less sockpuppetry in your next RFA. Will ^(talk) 00:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the process you showed character which was outstanding, especially considering some of the other's participation there. I am impressed indeed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My latest user box is an out-and-out ripoff of yours. Hope you don't mind.--Mantanmoreland 01:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Crockspot. I was very mixed on your RFA and didn't ultimately contribute to it. (I was leaning to a weak oppose). Sorry for the result for you personally, however. I'll suggest a) keep up the good work, b) tone down some of the politics, c) try again in 6 months. Sincerely, Smallbones 02:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Crockspots, this is a message from an "old friend". He says: (quote) " PWNED ! LOL ! REMEMBER ANDY ! " Whose Andy? ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]