User talk:Crockspot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk page Archive 01 - 2006-05-08 to 2006-10-03

Contents

[edit] Drudge Report and OR

Thanks for letting me know about your reply on Talk:Drudge Report. I responded on that page. Basically, you're right about WP:RS, but WP:NOR still applies.--Bibliophylax 16:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carcharoth's comments

See his comment re The War on Freedom Afd at [1]. Morton devonshire 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Crockspot

A user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The War on Freedom has asked that the first five votes be eliminated unless they are updated in light of new evidence. Would you mind taking a second look at the AfD and either reaffirming or rescinding your vote?

Thanks, GabrielF 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to Rajshekhar

Hey there is no need for fact tags on Dalit Voice publications that are used as primary sources!What is your exact grievance with this?
Btw I also am trying to remove liberal (and occassionally right-wing) bias from wikipedia like you say on your user page.Bear in mind that liberal anti-Hindu and even some anti-Semitic bias in India related articles is TOTALLY rampant on all article relating to India and the Rajshekhar article was the worst example of that before I fixed it.Hkelkar 04:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no grievance, and am pushing no agenda. I am simply trying to bring the article into compliance with WP:BLP. I think you added quite a bit of your POV to the article. I'm just trying to get it neutral. Crockspot 04:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The DV broadcasts were made before the internet existed and the DV people have conveniently kept it out of their online records. I have seen microfilm transcripts at my University library section on Indian History and am citing the date from the film.Hkelkar 04:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The statement by Rajshekhar that "There are no conversions to Judaism" is patently false. The Ger Tzedek (proselyte of rightousness) is the name of he who was born a gentile and who has converted to Judaism. You have to go through the Beth Din, Mikvah and other observances (sometimes Daf Yomi is also required depending...) , get a Shtar Giur to be a Jew. It is rare, but not unheard of. Similarly, conversions to Hinduism also take place like the case of David Frawley or Shri Vanmadeva Shastri see Category:Converts to Hinduism. Hinduism generally takes a neutral position on conversion as, given the plurality of the religion, Hindus are permitted to deify Christ, Allah, or anybody else. This is all well-documented and must be qualified as a falsehood on Rajshekhar's partHkelkar 04:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I am very grateful to you for taking the time to have a fresh look at this article. I am quite willing to help with tracking down relevant sources, as I have access to university libraries, but it was hard to know where to start. I don't have any specialist expertise on India, and I am still finding my way when it comes to WP policy on biography. Itsmejudith 08:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification, which I think was in line with my understanding of these matters. Itsmejudith 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roskam/Duckworth articles

Greetings, I see you have meet User talk:Gamaliel and have a little history this one. With that I would like to draw you attention to Peter Roskam and Tammy Duckworth articles.

Currently, These article are basically are "own" and controlled by two editors, User talk:Propol User talk:Goethean in my humble opinion and are backed up to the hilt by your good friend Mr. Gamaliel and have strong histories of apparent systemic bias. ( see histories for your self of said editors of you don't believe.)

Since, these to candidates are locked in a extremely tight and contentious race, with one of the candidates, Duckworth, being backed by the Deomocratic Chicago machine, whose reputation is world wide for dirty tricks, the risk of foul play is great. Its important to get it right.

So, I humbly ask that, if you have the time and or interest, to go over the the said articles and see that NPOV is enforced fairly.

I would assume that wikipedia is being watched closely, and how it behaves, may determine it's future. Any rate. I hope you understand.207.67.146.193 16:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a look, nothing really awful jumped out at me. I'm not really in the mood to get gang-banged by three lib editors either, but I put both articles on my watchlist. Crockspot 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
understand, these three are well organized and right now own those articles

As a matter of refernce I have written to Peter and he's aware of this place and what is happening. I would assume Peter would not be happy and considering his training and line of work, it would not be a good thing for wikipedia. Any rate thanks and god bless.207.67.146.193 17:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The first thing an unhappy subject of a BLP should do is contact the designated agent for Wikipedia, which I believe is either Danny or Jimbo (see WP:BLP). If there is indeed a problem that I am missing, that usually will get prompt action from the office. It does appear that some of your concerns on the talk page were taken seriously though. Crockspot 17:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I did comment on the talk page questioning the relevance of his stance on the ERA. He wasn't even an adult when it failed ratification. Neither article seems very POV to me though, and both are relatively well sourced. If you want to see a horror story, check out Mark Foley. Crockspot 17:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


User:Joehazelton has been blocked from editing due to repeated and blatant violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, etc., etc. He had some valid points to make which were lost in his flurry of personal attacks, angry denunciations, and accusations of bias. If you'd like to have a look at the article, I welcome your perspective, if for no other reason than to yet again rebut JH's assumption of bias. Gamaliel 17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the block logs, I think it might be a good idea for you to ask an uninvolved admin to review the indefinite block. Since he accuses you of being involved with multiple editors in a WP:OWN scenario, all of his blocks appear to involve the article in question, and all but one block was initiated by you, such a review would remove any appearance of a conflict of interest. I am not passing judgement on the block, (I have never seen evidence of you misusing administrative powers), and as I said above, I don't see any major problems with either article. I just think it would be a good proactive CYA move. If the user were to request dispute resolution, the block would probably become an issue. Crockspot 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but he's posted {{unblock}} requests before and they have been reviewed and denied, and I've posted a message on his page giving consent in advance to an unblock if another admin is willing to chaperone him. Hell, if you wanted to do it, I'd unblock him. What he does next to get himself unblocked is up to him.
As far as the conflict of interest, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm not editing the Roskham/Duckworth articles so there is no conflict. Or was there something else you meant by that? With the exception of obvious vandalism/attacks, I try not to play admin in sandboxes where I'm playing editor. Gamaliel 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It was just an initial perception, after hearing his complaints and taking a few quick looks, fresh to the situation. I wasn't implying there was a CoI, just suggesting there might be a perception of one. Obviously I haven't investigated very deeply, or I would have already known about the unblock comments. I'm without prejudice on this situation, and it isn't very high up on my list of Wikipedia Things To Fret Over. Crockspot 18:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well JH certainly thinks there was a conflict of interest, so if all you have to go by is his posts, I don't blame you for getting that impression. But then he thinks anyone who voted for Kerry is out to get him. Gamaliel 18:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PEST AfD

Hi; sorry to bother you about this, but I discovered more info about the PEST article and it does indeed appear to be a hoax. Your claims of recent usage appear to be incorrect; the claim that Ted Kennedy or other pundits (with the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh) used it is false. The AHA - the organization the doctor who coined the term is the Executive Director of - is a small new age quack organization in Boca Raton, not a professional organization of psychologists like the APA. The Columbia Journalism Review ridiculed the Boca Raton paper that published about this "phenomenon" for taking the doctor seriously. Of course, you may still think the article is worth keeping, but I thought I'd let you know about this new info. I have also contacted other editors who cited your sources as the reason for voting "keep." I don't know why I care enough to spend the time on this - lol... Anyway I've restored the "hoax" tag and added the new info to the article.--csloat 09:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to my bio

...were much appreciated. I think that there has been a real tendency in my bio to really go in for original research, on the theory that people here know me, more about me than is published in reliable sources, and that it is therefore ok. The real problem with original research is in the matter of interpretation and selectivity. Anyway, these things helped a lot.--Jimbo Wales 15:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm reading the Wired article very carefully right now, I think it is the source of the 500k comment. Is the Wired article inaccurate about your trading career? If so, I'm not sure how to reconcile that, as it is considered a reliable source. Crockspot 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times, BLP, Copyvio and other problems

The Wiki admins are all busy fighting on AN/I about a civility problem amongst themselves, and I can't get anyone to pay attention to a problem at Christopher Shays, regarding articles which have already come to the attention of the New York Times. User:FloNight hasn't gotten back to me, and User:Aaron Brenneman dropped it on AN/I, where the only admin to comment has been User:JzG . So, I just left him a talk message, only to realize after I left the message that he's away. Are you able to lend a hand in this? No one else seems willing or available. JzG has no TOC on his talk page, so I can't link you directly to the problem; it's at the bottom of User talk:JzG, section heading "Clarification." Seems that upholding BLP isn't highly-valued work these days. Thanks, Sandy 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On my watchlist now. Crockspot 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Information is frequently poorly-sourced, sourced to campaign literature, or completely misquoted. Same at Diane Farrell and Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006. Sandy 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot, if you have any questions about what's going on with the Christopher Shays mess, just leave me a message on my user talk page. Sandy has every reason to be upset with how it's being turned into an anti-Shays attack page and no admin is willing to do anything about it. --Aaron 19:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely every reason: violations of OR, BLP, POV, piling on, undue weight, poor sources, inflammatory section headings, unencyclopedic content, all explained on the talk page, but not a single other editor over there to help me. Sandy 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a pretty full wiki plate right now, but I will try to assist when I can. I will be off wiki for most of this weekend. Might I suggest tagging it with a delete-attack template? That should get some attention. If that is removed, nominate it for AfD as an attack page. Crockspot 13:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that template, and don't know where to find it. Sandy 13:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion, {{db-attack}} is the proper template name, if it applies. AfD templates are there too. - Crockspot 20:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look there: I've been really swamped. I certainly understand that no one is reading Wiki to decide who to vote for, but the article is in bad shape nonetheless. It "looks" cleaner now, because after much prodding from me, the entries were semi-referenced (URLs are available, but weren't provided, not surprisingly, since the portions presented were one-sided). The problem is, though, that the content inserted[2] (although now referenced) was an exact copy of his opponent's attack ad,[3] and still is. Inserting the opponent's one-sided attack ad is about as tendentious and POV as it gets. If I ever find time, I guess I'll have to rewrite it myself, NPOVing it, since no admin has condemned the tendentious edit, and I'm not in for a revert war. It doesn't tell the entire story of Shays and Iraq, although you correctly sniffed out the waffle factor :-) Sandy 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the comment above this section quite strange: I think that there has been a real tendency in my bio to really go in for original research, on the theory that people here know me, more about me than is published in reliable sources, and that it is therefore ok. It's not only on his bio: it's endemic throughout Wikipedia. I certainly hope he realizes that his bio is the norm, not the exception. Sandy 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Escorts

After failing a rename, the new tactic is to merge. You commented on the previous rename and you might find this interesting. --Tbeatty 21:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Close & Re-List

The Afd that you voted on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Hannity

BLP and reliable sources issues there. Sandy 16:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vince Foster

I saw from your comments on the AfD for Andy Stephenson that you don't like articles where someone "spread a concocted fantasy of the circumstances of the man's death" involving that he was murdered, when he died of illness. Could you please take a look at the Conspiracy theories section of the Vince Foster article and see if they pass the smell test? Ken Starr and the relevant legal jurisdiction found it was suicide in 1993, but we still list theories that he was having sex with Hillary Clinton, was murdered, etc. 24.13.253.255 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Based upon my brief run through the article, I would say that the main difference between the two subjects is that the wild theories in the Foster article are sourced by reliable secondary sources, like books and mainstream newspapers. The Stephenson article's wild theories are sourced by ranting bloggers. I was around the controversy during Andy's illness, (I guess you could say one of the ranting bloggers), and there is a record of contradictory statements made by the allegators in the Stephenson case. There is a good archive here. I will say that the "different theories" section of Foster needs some sourcing, especially the first paragraph. I'll put it on my watchlist and try to get back to it. Crockspot 00:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You should be made aware of this

User_talk:Derex#Friends to keep in touch with. --Aaron 06:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

 For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Craig

Still getting hit with rumors. --Tbeatty 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travel

Crockspot, I'm traveling, and only have access to an excruciatingly slow dialup for the next several days, which prohibits me from keeping up with my watchlist. POV and biased edits are occurring at Joe Lieberman and Sean Hannity, while the POV tag I placed at Christopher Shays (based on the copy of the Farrell attack ad) has been removed twice. If you have a chance to watchlist them over the next few days, I'd appreciate it. The POV edits at Lieberman are not supported by the sources used, and are being spammed across multiple bios, as well. Media Matters is again being used as a source at Hannity, although it has been discussed on the talk page and several editors' talk pages as a biased source. Sandy (Talk) 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at Hannity, see that text sourced to MediaMatters is still being added, and saw your references to WP:ATT. There was a long discussion (now archived) on Jossi's talk page, as well as the article talk page, concluding that Media Matters was a biased source, and resulting in consensual removal of the text. My understanding is that WP:ATT is still very much in the proposal stage; nonetheless, is there something in WP:ATT that renders biased sources now reliable, where they weren't under WP:V and WP:RS? Because I only have access to a slow connection, I may have missed a fundamental change in Wiki policies; please let me know if I've missed something important. Sandy (Talk) 22:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drudge

The same gossip and speculation are showing up on the Matt Drudge page. Can you weigh in on this? Thanks. Giles22 12:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question about mike malloy edit

Hi Crockspot - you removed a bit of text from the Mike Malloy article and in the edit summary said it solved a problem. Which problem are you refering to? If you mean the one with Capsource1's recent edits, that was about a different passage. Debivort 15:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There seemed to be pro-Malloy POV in that section, which was causing someone to add anti-Malloy POV for "balance". POV is POV as far as I am concerned, so I removed all POV and made it neutral, nothing left for anyone to complain about. Crockspot 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your bogus warning

You sent me a warning "Please cease from issuing 3RR warnings to members of the Living People Patrol who are executing the consensus of the patrol in removing defamatory material. Such edits are exempt from 3RR, and the reinsertion of such defamatory material is a blockable offence, per WP:BLP on both issues. Crockspot 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)" I am not aware of a Wikipedia policy making it a blockable offense to issue a 3RR warning to an editor who has deleted a section of text 3 times in less than 7 hours, if he is a member of a special group called "BLPP." How is "the consensus of the patrol" determined in a public way? As I noted in the Wikipedia policy inserted in the warning, BLP may be used to promote partisan views, and there are other ways than an individual serially deleting to enforce BLP. I have started a discussion of this at WP:BLPP. Edison 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning User:Joegoodfriend

This warning was inappropriate; it has not been determined to necessarily violate WP:BLP (see talk page). Please only give an official warning when someone blatantly violates a rule. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidence theory

I added some references and edited the POV last paragraph to make coincidence theory an actual alternative to conspiracy theory: if you look at millions of relationships between millions of people and events, you find some which would (falsely) make you think there was a conspiracy.Edison 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ophelia Benson

The Ophelia Benson article is better than it was before, with several reviews added as references. Could you please take another look at the article? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Craig

Let's talk about Larry Craig on Talk:Larry Craig. I know you think you're following Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, but I'm not so sure. Let's chat. Thanks -Quasipalm 19:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RfC

I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --NuclearZer0 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your harmonious and helpful contributions to the Mike Stark article.

Let's 'bury the hatchet'.

'Forgive and forget'.

'Let bygones be bygones'.

Alrighty then! - F.A.A.F.A. 04:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. - Crockspot 05:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carolyn Wood

I just saw the encouraging comment you placed following User:Joaquin Murietta's raising of concern about Carolyn Wood.

If you have occasion to comment of JM's efforts (Joaquin Murietta is a pen-name) I'd like to ask you to look more deeply.

JM's efforts on this, and other articles, are, IMO, highly damaging to the wikipedia. There is no question that JM is capable of good work. But, IMO, I think you will find that most of his efforts on articles on the war on terror have amounted to a kind of highly damaging sophisticated vandalism.

The JM identity sprung, full blown, onto the wikipedia on September 29 2005. JM immediately started involving himself in {afd} discussions, and discussions of other user's conduct on the Administrator's noticeboard. Most new users don't do that. Perhaps there are exceptions -- new users who had a long history of contributing anonymously. Perhaps JM was such a new user. But this is one of the warning signs that a new user is a sockpuppet.

This cryptic opinion offered by JM on October 5th, was my first interaction with him.

I asked JM to fill me on his "sourcing concern". I thought my queries were civil. He was evasive. Finally he agreed to take a second look at the article on the weekend, and share his concerns with me.

He almost immediately blanked the bulk of the article, and invoked the {copyvio} procedure. He wouldn't discuss his concerns with me in an honest manner. He kept distorting -- okay LYING about what I had written, tactful corrections where I pointed that I hadn't said what he claimed I said were simply ignored.

In case you haven't had experience with it the copyvio procedure had a very serious backlog a year ago. For all I know it still has one today. By invoking the copyvio he froze the work on this new article for almost three weeks.

I spent some time looking into the issue of the copyvio. What I found was that, even if his bogus accusations were correct, the article would still not be violating anyone's copyright. I found that

  • Feist v. Rural said that what the US Supreme Court called "facts", like names, weren't copyrightable.
  • The Supreme Court's Feist v. Rural seems counter-intuitiive to many. It says that the amount of work someone had spent compiling a list was irrelevant, the list was not copyrightable, unless the compiler supplied that creativity in the way they formatted, or ordered it. So, a list of the birthdates of hollywood starlets would not be copyrightable. But, if it was published on Valentines day, in the form of a Valentine's day heart, the list, in the form of the heart, would be copyrightable. The SCOTUS ruling is specific. It specifically states that obvious orders, like alphabetic, or numeric order, were not copyrightable. So, even if his repeated assertion, that I had taken the names from a single source (I hadn't, and had told him I hadn't over half a dozen times.) were true, that list still wouldn't have been a copyright violation.

When I pointed this out on the page for discussing copyright violations he had the nerve to respond with one of his typically disingenuous replies. He couldn't find a passage to quote that backed up his view, since the ruling contradicts it. So he prefaced a quoted passage, so that quoting the passage that said some lists were copyrightable, since they used a creative order, without quoting the very next sentence that clarified that alphabetical order didn't count.

After a week of effort to be civil to him, in spite of his repeated misrepresentations of my statements, I had had it. This most position was highly intellectually dishonest. I said so.

JM can dish it out, but he can't take criticisms. His response was to start following me around like a stalker. Very shortly after this first comment of mine were I allowed myself to be less tactful than ususl he filed an {afd} against Carolyn Wood. Note: his justification:

This almost-orphaned article should be deleted because the subject is nn and there are POV issues, which probably cannot be solved by editing. The only link is Bagram torture and prisoner abuse. The subject, Capt. Wood, received two Bronze stars and was not the subject of a court-martial. Not sure why she's should be on Wikipedia.

As I am sure you know, a perceived POV issue is not grounds for nominating an article for deletion. This has been pointed out to JM literally dozens of times. JM has not responded to a single one of the instances where this has been pointed out -- not only with regard to this article, but also with regard to the over a dozen bogus {afd}s he launched against articles I started.

I said that JM started following me around like a stalker. He followed my edits:

  • ...and subjected them to arbitrary and unexplained excisions.
  • ...he spammed a series of articles with a vieled criticism of my efforts. Note, this dispute tage was cut and paste from the other instances where he was criticizing my efforts on expanding the wikipedia's coverage of Guantanamo detainees. Note: Wood was nver stationed in Guantanamo Bay. Note: the article didn't quote a single press release from a defense attorney.
  • ...every article I contributed to was at risk of a vicious, unexplained excision, having a bogus afd filed against them.
  • ...JM would assert criticisms, or excise material, based on one justification, and then utter criticisms, or excise materil, using justifications 180 degrees diametrically opposed to a justification he had used less than a week earlier. For example, in the Carolyn Wood article, he criticized that it cited press releases, not primary sources. Then, when I went to quite a bit of work citing those primary sources, he vandalized my work.

Take a look at these example of JM's malice

Bush on the Couch JM's {afd}
  • I didn't start this article. Someone else did. But what they put was pretty close to patent nonsense. When I noticed it I could have put {{db|nonsense}}. But I didn't do that because I didn't at that time, know any better. So I took a few minutes to replace the nonsense with a workable stub.
  • JM's invocation of the {afd} process on this article followed closely the closure, as keep, of the Carolyn Wood {afd}
Justin Frank Personal attack JM created a whole article, in article space, solely to quote me in a deceitful, mocking manner
Executive Order 12333 JM's afd
  • Note: There were other articles on Executive Orders that were as brief, or briefer than this stub.
  • I had started the stub two days earlier. JM's invoking the {afd} procedure on this article closely followed the closure, as keep, of the Bush on the Couch afd.
  • JM realized they had over-reached. Look at their defense of their vandalism. It deceitfully claims the version they nominated for deletion was only two sentences long -- not mentioning the references I supplied. The other short articles on Executive Orders have references now -- references supplied by yours truly. But they didn't then. As I am sure you know, th references are hard part. I didn't call him on his deceitfulness then. But it is typical of the pattern of his deceit, over and over again.

If you take a closer look at JM's later comments in Talk:Carolyn Wood I think you will see him giving the surface appearance of complying with WP:CIV and other policies, while doing his utmost to be disruptive. He keeps repeating the suggestion that the article be renamed "The case against Carolyn Wood". That is a ridiculous title, one that would prompt outrage and {afd} proposals.

his note on the BLP page is typical of one of his approaches. (1) Leave civil sounding bad ideas for discussion. If those bad ideas are endorsed, even in part, even by a single person, implement the action, leaving "as per suggestion of X". See the merger of Camp X-ray, Camp Delta, Camp Echo -- done with endorsement of a single person. They wanted to merge Camp Iguana and Guantanamo Bay and Guantanamo Bay Naval Base as well. JM accused me of creating multiple articles on Guantanamo because I wanted to multiply the number of times Guantanamo and abuse triggered google hits. And I believe their merger was done for the opposite reasons -- to divide the number of hits google searches result in.

These examples of JM's malice and destructiveness represent less than 1% of their total efforts aimed in my direction. They largely piped down, after about 3 months. What I am afraid is that they realized they couldn't get administrator status under this name, and are now causing chaos under some other sock-puppet identity.

I am going to ask you, to look more deeply, if you ever find yourself called upon to comment on an issue raised by JM.

Cordially -- Geo Swan 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not an admin, so there's not a lot I can do to help you, other than to offer opinions. I'll take a look when I get a chance, but you could request some sort of dispute resolution. You could also request a checkuser be run on JM, I believe that would cough up all the IP's he has used with that name, and other names used with those IPs. That would reveal any sockpuppetry. I think any admin can run (or maybe request?) that check. Crockspot 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For adding the dabs. BenBurch 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Castagana edits

Hi CP and RW,

You guys delelted a TON of sourced, cited, documented content.

'too long' as RW argued is nothing more than an opinion, (and not a very valid one as there are articles 5X-10X as long as this) and not a valid reason to delete content that meets WP, that CptK spent probably hours researching and writing. It was ALL sourced too. I hope you will add much of this back in RW.

All the claims were cited in the earlier version. You (both) took out the citing with your edits. 90% of it can be sourced to the one Daily News article. If you are demanding individual cites, please add links to this article, as it documents almost all of them.

Free Republic is a RS for something about FR, if it is a claim not being disputed. It's not. It can stay. - 20:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk • contribs).

  • Actually, all I did was add cn templates, a category, and a blp template to the talk page. I don't believe I removed anything. - Crockspot 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy

Heh man, where ya been? Morton DevonshireYo 12:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ava Lowery

Hi, Crockspot- FAAFA asked me to informally help mediate the discussion at the Ava Lowery article, and with the amount of back-and-forth that has gone on on the discussion page, the discussion seems to be all over the place and difficult to discern what the major points of contention are. I would appreciate it immensely if you could summarize your opinion on the subject and respond to this question on that talk page or on my own (or here). I've done some work on neutral point of view surrounding Protest Warrior and other sensitive political topics in the past, so I'd be more than happy to attempt to help out here. Thanks for your time, --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns entirely. I wish he could quit acting in the inflammatory manner that he has established a reputation for and reliably contribute- he seems to be good enough at finding sources, etc- he just seems to have trouble keeping bias out and civility in his editing habits, and his habits of acting in an uncivil, almost trollish manner have provoked outbursts from a number of editors that I am aware of. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I will give him that: When asked to provide a source, he usually can come up with a pretty good one. At this point, that is about the only good thing I can think to say about him, so I will just shut up now. Thanks for your help. - Crockspot 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I am happy to help. I am going to wait to hear FAAFA's opinion before going into any analysis of depth, but my preliminary opinion after looking through the article sources is that the article's subject does appear to be a figure who has espoused some controversy in political circles. It is not out of the question to mention controversy, particularly in the case of a person who is notable for controversies- reliable sources are still an issue, but I will address that among other things below. To address some of the specific concerns that you mentioned in your statement on FAAFA's page:
        • Insofar as saying that the article's subject has made anti-Republican statements or messages, there is a very fine line between using neutral tone in the article's voice and allowing the voice to make value judgements. One way to solve this in a way possibly possibly amenable to both parties would be to say that "In the video X, the subject made statements critical of Y such as Z", where Y is the specific public figure (I'm assuming the President, often a target for partisans), and where Z is the specific image or device used to make the statement.
        • I am not sure if one of the issues at hand is whether to say that the subject has been criticized for her statements. If this is a point of contention, please let me know on my talk page- In light of the WP:BLP policies, criticism has become a touchy subject, especially where politics are concerned, and only very well-sourced statements are generally allowed under the new policies. These were motivated by the Foundation's concerns regarding defamation laws and the like, and is a policy that is still in the process of establishment across the project.
        • I am certainly not above criticism in any fashion, but I am of the opinion that, where issues of the new Biographies of Living Persons policy is concerned, the standards for reliability and attribution are exceedingly important. Blog posts and comments from message boards may be appropriate to use in a descriptive manner, as the policy you have cited from WP:RS says, but editors must be doubly careful when treading in the areas now under the purview of BLP.
That's most of what I have to say on the subject at present; I think that an effort to keep any controversy off of the article is not right, but at the same time there are demands made by policy to not relax standards of verifiability, particularly in areas concerning living people. If there is anything you would like to append to your statement, I have migrated it to my talk page. Thank you, --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, while I will work toward a neutrally-toned version of this article, I can only encourage you to keep editing at the page itself. I have some experience sourcing, but am not familiar with and do not move in politically-oriented circles, so I may need any assistance you could offer to come up with reliable sources for controversy- remember, even a mainstream source briefly describing any controversy may be appropriate, which, given some of the mainstream coverage the subject has garnered, I imagine would not be out of the question. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
One last thing. I noticed there is a request for comment open against FAAFA- I knew that he had a bad reputation around here, but did not know that he was to that point. I am still interested in informally mediating at Ava Lowery, and think that some of FAAFA's concerns might be genuine, but agree in principle that much of his behavior has been appropriate for an environment conducive to working on an encyclopedia, just so you know that the fact that I agreed to wade into the mess there isn't tinged by any kind of bias. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You've never given me any reason to doubt in your ability to separate your political beliefs from your encyclopedic fair-mindedness. Hopefully, your fairness will not earn you the moniker of "freeper scum" from a certain someone. - Crockspot 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The "anti-republican" stuff was another editor's issue, not mine. The only issue I have is that the "death threats" section's only "reliable" source, an article from the Progressive, is dubious at best. It states that a particular "death threat" came as the result of her WWJD article, and even implied that those threats came from CU. (Some have maintained that she was talking about a generic conservative underground, but that didn't stop lots of people, particularly from DU, from pointing at CU, and hammering us incessantly about it.) An archived post of Ava's on POAC from nine months previous shows that the particular threat occurred long before WWJD was ever produced, and had nothing to do with CU. As far as I have seen, that one threat was the only publicly documented text that could be construed as a threat. No one on CU ever threatened her, and certainly not in response to WWJD. If there were other actual threats against her regarding WWJD in particular, they have never been published. CU's involvement with Ava is pretty much limited to this thread, which Ava started on CU, and her mother contributed to, threatening us with legal action, etc. (Ava and mom edited out their posts, but others in the thread quoted them, so you can pretty much piece it together.) We didn't even know who Ava was when she showed up, so she was treated pretty much like all liberal trolls are who show up at CU, tolerated by some, vulgarly insulted by others. I think one member's sigline may have been misinterpreted by Ava as a threat against her, but that sigline appeared in all of his posts, so it was a simple misunderstanding. Another member made the masturbation comment, but that is pretty mild for that guy, and he did not know she was a teenager when he made it. The whole think conflated from there. In a nutshell, CU had nothing to do with death threats against her, and the Progressive article is too dubious to be used alone as a reliable source for any threats that may have been made by others. If you can find better sources, then by all means, write a good, well sourced section about it. Just leave CU out of it as far as death threats go. Being "vulgarly insulted" on the internet hardly seems like a notable enough event for encyclopedic inclusion, but if you feel differently, and it can be sourced by other than the Progressive article, I guess it could go in. Other than that, since FAAFA has been adding more sources, she does seem notable enough to me now to have an article. Before, notability wasn't asserted well enough in the article, but that does not seem to be the case anymore. Crockspot 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You see, that I had misconstrued the exact issue of contention is one of the things that makes mediating, even informally, difficult! Please mention this in a brief comment on my talk page. Additionally, in the interest of not seeing the comments degenerate into back-and-forth, be sure to exercise restraint if you do- he originally put a response to your statement when I asked him for an independent statement. I seperated it out, but I am concerned it is in his nature to be kind of combative. I responded on his talk page and brought the issue of his incivility up and mentioned points where I thought his concerns might be founded there. I hope he'll listen to me, but it can be tough to change the methods of someone set in their ways.
To address some of the other things that you brought up, I think that the specifics of the individual "insulting" incidents can be removed and replaced with a mention of controversy surrounding the subject; the death threats, if they are verifiable, are probably more worthy of individual mention. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Crockspot! I'm back from the long holiday weekend. At a glance at the Ava Lowery page it looks like things are much more harmonious than when I left. If you could let me know if there's anything else I can help with there, just drop me a note on my talk page. If not, happy editing. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text removed

Have you seen this? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits to Mike Malloy

Hello Crockspot, as one our dedicated POV cullers, I wanted to let you know that there have been some persistent unsourced edits to Mike Malloy that are quite POV. I'm trying to pursuade the editor to back off of them, but would appreciate your input as well. Debivort 17:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I made an objective Solomonesque edit. Crockspot 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, just to let you know, I couldn't help notice this request while I came to leave the above message re: Ava Lowery. At this article, I changed "unabashed" to "open", hope you don't mind. Cheers, --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Crockspot 16:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Foley Scandal

Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check it out: my first Wiki article

Brad Stine. Improvements and suggestions are welcome. Jinxmchue 20:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Yeah, forgot about the discussion page after I moved the article. Jinxmchue 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I made some big improvements to the article (after Ben F. Burch complained that it read like an advertisement - whatever...). Jinxmchue 23:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katona

Mr Crockspot!

Thanks for your time the other night. I have the sources with which to cite Kery Katona's pornographic modelling which left user KittenKlub somewhat in denial. To be honest, I think she (assumption of gender on my part) knows as well as myself and most everyone in the UK that Kerry Katona did shots a little more risky than topless.

Thing is, I am not familiar with the black art of getting the citations onto the site. Can you help?

The most explicit shots of Ms Katona were published in porn mags in the UK and elsewhere but I don't have the back issues! However, a full-frontal nude shot was printed in the UK's Daily Sport 'newspaper' (The Daily Sport) which have been scanned into a celebrity site here: www.celebritympg.com/kkatona/kerry-katona-nude_016.jpg

The Daily Sport is not allowed to show the pudenda or vulva in its pages, hence the very obvious cut just above the, ahem, 'area' and also what looks very much to have been pubic hair photoshopped out of the image.

Public domain, public knowledge, clearly none of this is personal research and as such should go in for accuracy.

Above image clearly stronger than topless, I'd make a case for pornography as it is clearly not an artistic nude shot and it is also part of a series of shots taken at the same time which are far more explicit.

I'd be grateful of your help, although KittenKlub will doubtless vandalise the page once it is up-to-date!

Thanks,

Magpie1892

(John)

Mr C,

I agree on nude. I don't think it will be possible to get a Daily Sport website link to that image. While it is clearly from the Sport, they don't carry an internet archive. There are links to other Katona nude pics (more arty) which I can post and I'll get them to you. I think I've proved 'nude' though and in the context of Katona's cocaine use and the fact that she wasin a band but didn't actually sing on any of the records, I think it could not be construed as in any way out of order to note the fact that she has done nude photos.

I was surmising what KittenKlub might do when the source is cited and the info and a link goes back up. I have not accused her of vandalism as yet!

Can we agree that 'nude photography' goes in the bio? I'll try and be gentle...

Magpie1892

(John)

  • I left you a link which provides the date of publication. I would say "A nude photograph of her was published in The Daily Sport (citation)" and leave it at that. Knowing the date of publication and the name of the paper is sufficient to build a citation, it doesn't HAVE to have an online link. Crockspot 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Crock monsieur. Have added a line of text. Pity me, I have no idea how to get the wee box for the citation and to link to the picture at all. A thousand thank yous if you could do it for me, then change my nappy.

The Daily Sport is an apaling 'newspaper' - garbage. However, the story that they hade more photos (explicit shots) is true. they've been in gentlemen's magazines and I've seen 'em. Her then husband allegedly paid big for the negatives. Will see if I can find a source.

Mr C,

THANK YOU! The text was reverted as soon as I changed it but now, hopefully, it will be left alone. I did say that the former might happen...!

Many thanks for your help. you'll have to teach me to do that sometime.

Magpie1892

(John)

  • To be fair, it was unsourced when she removed it. Crockspot 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. I was just about to go back in and do so but it had reverted in the blink of an eye! KittenKlub now calling me a pervert but that is not totally unexpected either. Glad we seem to have got this sorted and I cannot thank you enough for your help. Magpie1892

Thank you for your most recent comments. As far as I am aware, the rights holer for the picture in the Sport are the Sport themselves. As you aware, they had a lot more, far 'racier' shots that were promised but Katona's then husband Bryan McFadden paid up big time for the negs. I think that particular part of the bio reads just fine. I will admit that it got a little personal know I was right and having KittenKlub do the wiki equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting: 'LA LA LA LA LA!'. I'm grateful, very much so, for your help in getting the bio closer to nirvana. Magpie1892

[edit] Independent opinion.

I saw Mongo said the following: "Ha....I have my own thoughts on the Bush administration, which I don't dare repeat here for fear of violation WP:BLP... --MONGO 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)"

Would he really be violating bLP for kissing and telling? --70.8.116.62 01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letter beacon

Hi! I've updated the Letter beacon article to add a source for some of the material. I also added the {{fact}} tag for the stuff I couldn't source, and removed the "unreferenced" and "original research" tags from the article. I'm letting you know this on your talk page in case you don't have the article on your watchlist; if you do, feel free to remove this comment -- no offense will be taken. Thanks. --Tkynerd 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demski

I disagree that it is in violation of BLP. Nonetheless, the warning, which you didn't sign, was unnecessary. All you needed to do was revert the damned thing with an explanation. Do we understand each other? Just so you know, I'm removing the warning since its intent has been acknowledged and served. •Jim62sch• 21:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I was just making sure that I got your attention, and that you were notified. I did intend to sign the template. My mistake. The guidelines for Biographies of living persons are very strict, and there is an organized effort to crack down on negative information that does not meet WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR in the strongest terms. This effort is encouraged by the head office. If you think that you might like to help, check out the Living People Patrol and the BLP noticeboard. Crockspot 00:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1983 Crash

I appreciate the cool head and attempt to get things back on track. I don't particularly like that you characterized me as attacking anyone else -- I've tried very hard to stay focused on the meat of the issue (article problems) instead of attacking back. What actions of mine made it seem like I was attacking back? Continual learning process... thanks again! /Blaxthos 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I only implied that you came on a little strong initially, which you did. That put people on the defensive, and it escalated from there. The discussion is currently unproductive. I think if you acknowledge that you could have been more diplomatic in your request for sourcing, it may diffuse the situation. I'm pretty sure that most of the claims can be sourced, and most of those guys probably have the stacks of old gamer magazines with which to do it. Crockspot 15:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You said "you guys are still attacking each other" -- I have been nothing but the victim of the attacks. I did come on a little strong, but only with the intent of sparking a sense of urgency -- there are OR and citation complaints from half a year ago (or longer) that haven't been addressed. Perhaps that set the wrong tone, but I find the behavior of the other editors absolutely disgusting. I have never had my credibility challenged, and I find their behavior massively offensive. Yet I have refrained from focusing on their behavior and am trying to re-train the discussion (and appreciate your help). Thanks! /Blaxthos 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to my world. I'll refactor my comment a bit. Crockspot 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Crockspot, I have a question for you, that for privacy issues I would rather handle offline.

Can you email me wikicaper13 at gmail period com

Its nothing weird, but I'd like your guidance on how to proceed given that it is both an Admin and WP:BLP issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.77.124.61 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

  • email sent, but I'm not an admin, fyi. Crockspot 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

Please make checkuser requests at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser. Fred Bauder 12:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Events Re: Desysopping

All the news that's fit for print. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] drive by

Cheers, thank you for sending that. I am utterly shocked at the results of that case. In particular this is insane. For example, by my linking to it — without knowledge of the case, I would be acting contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia. Good grief. Boy, and reading yet further, the "enforcement by block" section is chilling. I may have done that myself (I don't recall. A quick search seems to indicate I haven't).

At any rate, thank you very much for providing me with that. While I am deeply dismayed by it, eh, what's the use in complaining? ttfn ... aa:talk 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a sore spot. Especially today. - Crockspot 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/o/User_talk%7ECrockspot_f91a.html"