Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot

Crockspot

Voice your opinion (talk page) (68/10/2); Scheduled to end 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot (talk · contribs) - joined Wikipedia well over a year ago and has over 6,000 edits. He is an active vandal fighter, reporting repeat offenders to appropriate noticeboards [1], [2], [3], [4] and he is also a strong supporter of policies, especially biographies of living persons, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and reporting BLP issues at the BLP noticeboard, [10]. He has been involved in a number of discussions on articles that have very polemic views and has maintained a high level of civility in this situations. Crockspot is active on noticeboards [11], has participated in plenty of Afd discussions, [12], [13], [14] and has been involved in an arbitration case though only peripherally. Crockspot is experienced across all namespaces and has helped us write the encyclopedia [15], [16], [17], adding appropriate refs and content, and started a number of articles such as Thomas Tate Tobin, Julia Compton Moore, Andre Lucas and FSB Ripcord. In the article Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, Crockspot converted over 100 external links embedded in the text to inline referencing citations, checking each for accuracy. I definitely believe that giving Crockspot extra buttons would be beneficial to Wikipedia and it is my pleasure to nominate him. MONGO 17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I accept this nomination. As a new user, I was not a saint, but I learned quickly the ways of Wikipedia, and I think that my behavior since last fall has been very good, and I have particularly tried to be extra civil and assume good faith since the MONGO II RfC. All humans have biases, but I try to be fair and consistent, no matter the subject. Since I am open about my political leanings, it is easy to point the finger of bias at me, but I think if any situation I have been involved in this year is examined closely, one will find that I have tried very hard to work productively and civilly, even with editors who I have disputed with in the past, and I have tried to apply policy consistently, regardless of whether it supports my personal views or not. I have attempted lately to focus more on fighting blatant vandalism (blanking and "poop" edits, etc). That work does attract me a few random trolls, but it seems to ruffle fewer feathers among established editors. I worked for five years in the IS department of SCO and Tarantella (before the Utah crew took it over), and I was root on their worldwide 3000+ node network, so I am no stranger to being entrusted with sensitive access. I think I have been a great asset to Wikipedia up to now, and I could continue and increase my helpfulness with access to the admin tools. I hope that I have earned the trust of the community, and will try my hardest not let you all down. - Crockspot 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (I have a family obligation out of town this weekend - 8/11-8/12 - so I will be unavailable to respond those two days. - Crockspot 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I am currently involved in RC patrol and BLP patrol. RC can be pretty fast paced, and often AIV is backlogged, so I think I could help there, and even weed out some of the more obvious blocks before they even reach AIV. On BLPN, often there is a particularly bad attack article that needs a speedy, or some other fairly urgent issue, and it isn't always easy to scare up an admin on the spot, so in those two areas I think I could be the most help. There are also backlogs in various CSD categories. I'm willing to help wherever a need is pointed out to me. While I have never been shy about wading into the middle of a contentious dispute, I would try to avoid administrative action where there might be an appearance of COI. In such cases I think it's important for admins to build working relationships with other admins who they may not always agree with. I have tried to build such a relationship with User:Gamaliel, and would hope that each of us could rely on the other to help out in cases where an accusation of biased administrative action would be likely. - Crockspot 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Probably the best overall improvement I've made to the project is the upgrade and improvement of citations and addition of sources in many articles, such as those related to the Vietnam war and battles, elected officials, and pretty much any article where I notice a lot of simple inline urls as cites. See User:Crockspot#Cite rehab methodology for how I go about this. There is a perception among educators that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. While this is true and always will be, I would like to see that perception modified slightly so that WP is seen as reliable for finding reliable sources. If a kid is doing a term paper and he looks on Wikipedia, I want him to find a full footnote citation for anything he reads, so he can go to the library and look up the original source to cite in his paper. If all that is there is a dead url, we have failed. I also created a few modest articles that I am proud of: FSB Ripcord, Andre Lucas, Julia Compton Moore, and Thomas Tate Tobin. - Crockspot 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have to admit that when I first came to Wikipedia, I was not the perfect editor. I had several disputes with User:BenBurch. Fortunately, I learned fairly quickly what a cool project this is, and avoided going further down a path that would have lead eventually to no good. (I've never been blocked, so I never behaved too badly.) Ben and I have since become friends. I have had plenty of disputes with User:Gamaliel over both policy and content, but we have both grown to respect each other. We have different views, but we both try to be fair, and we sort of keep each other "honest". Since I am open about my politics on my user page, it does make me a target for random accusations of Rovery, but more often than not, the editors leveling such charges were previously obstructed by me in their own effort to push some agenda or another. Most of the editors I have had disputes with I have eventually come to some sort of understanding with. We may still disagree strongly, but we at least try to discuss it productively now. There are a couple of exceptions, of course. Editors who just will not work nicely with me. Several of them are no longer with us, so it wasn't just me they had a problem with. A few are still around, and I just try not to engage them, and utilize the various processes that exist for dealing with them, rather than get red-faced and angry about it. I was fairly uncivil in my early days, but since about last fall I really tried to improve my attitude, and especially since the MONGO II RfC, I have tried to bend over backwards to be extra civil and keep a cool head. It has actually made me a happier editor, because I don't have to get emotionally invested in something that really could be solved easily if people just stopped picking at each other, and focused on the content. I don't have completely unlimited patience though, and sometimes frustration will get the better of me, but I think that happens to everyone, and I think I've been handling it well through 2007. - Crockspot 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

4. Do you stand up for your AFD vote here, or was it a mistake? AFD Vote Did your right wing POV play any part in this vote? This famous man was on CSPAN the night you voted! Thank you. Proofs Link 1 and Link 2 and Link 3 Bmedley Sutler 02:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A: Normally, when one asks an optional question, they wait for it to be answered before making their final decision. You appear to have made your decision already. While I don't feel obligated to answer, I will. I made my !vote at 4:45pm EST. I don't have cable, and my tv stations are all out of Quebec, so I would not have seen Stark on TV. Most of links you added to the AfD were all posted more than 24 hours later. Looking at my edit history for that timeframe, I see that I was quite busy with something else, so I'm sure I did not look at the AfD on that last day. It was closed overnight, so, done deal. Looking back at it, he may have more notability than I first assessed. But the links you posted at the AfD were mostly blogs, so only a couple would have been allowed anyway, so we're talking marginal notability. The links you provide here are not the same ones you provided at the AfD either. Knowing what I knew then, I would probably !vote the same way. Knowing what I know now, I would probably !vote weak keep. Was that a mistake? Maybe, maybe not, but it makes no difference, as the consensus clearly did not agree with me. The only mistake I think I made was being a bit of a wisenheimer. - Crockspot 03:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for asking a question even though I had voted. I didn't know. I think you're a nice guy, but my experience says that we need administrators who aren't so dedicated to fighting political battles on Wikipedia on the left or the right. Very overly strong political views and power don't mix well, IMO. Bmedley Sutler 04:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by Trusilver concerning WP:AIV.

5. Under what circumstances do you feel it's appropriate to block active vandals who have not yet received a "final warning"?

A: If someone is making obvious vandal edits, and their edit history is overwhelmingly vandalism, and they have received multiple warnings, I don't think it's necessary for them to get one more "FINAL WARNING". The next level down already implies that they will be blocked if they continue. When I do RC patrol, here is how I handle it. If the user has no edit history, and it is fairly mild vandalism, they get a level one warning. If it's pretty nasty and libelous, I may start them at level two or three, just to get their attention. I usually assume that they won't see my warning until they make their next edit, so I try to take that into account on all warnings. If they continue, then I step them up in sequence. If the vandalism is particularly nasty, I may skip a level, and if they have a history of repeated vandalism, I may bump it to final pretty quickly. If the first recent vandalism is particularly nasty, AND they have a history of past vandalism (and/or blocks for it), I may opt to give them an "ONLY WARNING" right off the bat. Again, I assume that they will not see this final or only warning until AFTER their next edit, so they basically get a free pass from me for one more act of vandalism. But if they make another one, I immediately report them to AIV. I've reported dozens of vandals to AIV, and I believe that every one of the was immediately blocked by the reviewing admin, unless it was a mistake on my part. RC patrol is fast paced, and occasionally, like when an IP sockpuppet is vandalizing the talk page of his previous IP address, you might report the wrong IP. I think I've done that one or two times. When that did happen, the reviewing admin was already contacting me with a "Whaaaaat?" by the time I could correct my mistake. (Edit conflicts make it very hard to correct mistakes on AIV, so I try not to make them in the first place.) In certain known cases, like socks of Joehazelton, who are known to be on a particular ISP, and always attack the same user pages with the same kinds of messages, I just report them without a warning. Warning him isn't going to do anything but waste my time, and draw his abuse. I have also learned that if an editor doesn't stop vandalizing after two warnings, they aren't going to stop for any warning. But I still issue them. - Crockspot 20:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

More Anticipating a followup, I guess I should give you my personal litmus test for what I consider "nasty". On the scale from mild to nasty, replacing words with penis, vagina, or poop or other kid nonsense would be on the mild end. Blanking content would be in the middle (if it appears deliberate, otherwise it's mild). Blanking and replacing with libel or inserting statements like "(subject) is a faggot" would be on the nasty end. Vandalism that required a lot of prep work, like photoshopping an image, uploading it, and then using it to vandalize an article, would fall between the middle and nasty. Where I judge them on that type of scale determines what level I will start them at, and how quickly I will bump up the levels of warnings. - Crockspot 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

6. Could you explain your attitude towards blanking articles while they are at AfD, or , when you are an admin, speedy deleting them. I'm a little upset by your insistence on it in the current instance AfD mentioned by Groggy Dice below. Could you give a more general discussion--not on that one article, which has already been discussed sufficiently here. DGG (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A First, the blanking issue. There was some recent discussion on (I believe) Jimbo's talk page regarding courtesy blanking of some closed AfD discussions, and Jimbo stated basically that blanking a closed discussion isn't a big deal, because the history is still there. The material just does not get indexed by Google. This is a different context, so I may have misapplied the concept by blanking the article while in AfD. However, an article in AfD is not restricted from editing, and WP:V and WP:BLP both call for unsourced information to be removed, or in the case of a completely unsourced bio with no good history to revert to, to be stubbed.

So as of now, no, I don't think that blanking an article in AfD is appropriate in any but the most extreme of circumstances. For instance, something that leaves the project open to serious liability, and would unquestioningly qualify for CSD normally, but is prohibited by WP:CSD due to survival of a previous deletion discussion. Even then, some consensus should be reached about it. But an AfD should not preclude the removal of material that is prohibited by WP:V or WP:BLP.

Second part, I do have to return to the current AfD. I stated below that there was a decent possibility that I would have speedied it. I didn't say definitely. The article did appear to qualify for CSD A10 and G7, but after reviewing WP:CSD again, I would say only weakly. Had I been the admin who had to take responsibility for deleting that one, I now think I would have done just what the nominator did: think about it over dinner, and nominate it for AfD. I should also point out that I switched to "neutral pending improvements", but I will probably switch to delete on WP:BLP1E grounds.

I'd like to draw your attention to another AfD I was involved in recently. This version, as nominated, is a strong candidate for CSD G1, A1, and A7, and maybe even a weak G10 and G11. I !voted "speedy delete", and I stand by that !vote at that moment in time. I don't think any admin who speedied it would have been criticized for it. However, a dedicated editor took it upon himself to find sources and rewrite the article (I even threw a couple of sources his way), and it was improved so greatly that I flipped to "keep". I also encouraged the editor to canvass the deletes, and ask them to reevaluate. Enough deletes flipped, and Fudgie Frottage was kept.

AfD is the preferred process for removing content from the project, by consensus. These two cases, and the concerns expressed here on this page, tell me that I need to be very sure that something strongly and narrowly qualifies for a CSD criteria, and be fairly certain that the community would consider it a snowball delete before I delete it. Even then, something may get deleted that could have been saved. In a Fudgie scenario, if it had been speedied by me or anyone else, I would have been happy to restore the article to that editor's user space, and would have gladly supported moving it back into main after his improvements. - Crockspot 02:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

7. Please explain this edit.--Chaser - T 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

AI first need to get out of the way that some of that overall statement was later struck, I was confused about events between two different concurrent edit wars involving intersecting editors. But I don't think that is what you are getting at. This also addresses Matthew's concerns (see oppose #1) about admin "superiority". Unless I am mistaken, one does not become an admin unless they can show a good understanding of policy and guidelines, and can demonstrate an ability to apply them. One also needs to have some experience and show some dedication to the project's interests. I would not choose the word "superior". Experienced? Yes. Knowledgable? Yes. Respected? Sometimes. Honestly interested in furthering the project's interests? We would hope.

The editor that I left that message for is one that I have communicated with a bit via email (see Support #20). I believe he had been off wiki for a short time, and from a reply he left on the article's talk page, I was sure he was unaware of the most recent dispute and discussion. Some of these discussions get pretty heated, and there is usually participation by "single purpose", or "single issue" editors, and even sockpuppets. Sometimes the waters get muddied, and it's hard to tell what is currently going on. I was basically telling him "hey, you need to get up to speed, the previous consensus has shifted, and it isn't just sockpuppets and POV warriors saying so." - Crockspot 03:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

8. At this [18] discussion, you objected[19] to my proposal to notify main contributors to an article that the articles they worked on is up for AfD. Could you explain your views on this more generally? DGG (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A Here are my combined edits there. My problem is with the requirement part. WP:AFD currently states: While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. I agree with this wholeheartedly. The problem is, when you make it a requirement, there must be consequences for failure to meet the requirement. How is all main contributors defined? By number of total edits since creation? By recent activity? People do make great contributions, then work on other things. Are they still a main contributor? Some editors use the preview button religiously, and may have made only one or two edits that were of great value to the article. Does every edit in the history have to be examined to find an editor like that? What happens if someone slips through the cracks and isn't notified? Is the AfD voided? I think making this a requirement would create chaos in the AfD process. This is what I was thinking when I made those remarks, but I don't think I conveyed it very well. - Crockspot 03:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Geo Swan:

9. The wikipedia has policies of WP:AGF, WP:CIV. I think wikipedia administrators continue to have an obligation to comply with these policies. I think because administrators should know the wikipedia's policies, should be leading by example, I think administrators have a particular obligation to try to comply with all these important wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, it seems to me that some administrators act as if being promoted to administrator's frees them of the obligation to try to be civil and try to assume good faith. If you are promoted to administrator can we count on you continuing to do your best to be civil, and assume good faith? Geo Swan 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A Certainly. I've been pretty good in that department this year, and I don't see myself getting any worse, only better. - Crockspot 03:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

10. Personally, I respect people who can admit they are capable of error, and they made a mistake. We are all human. We all make mistakes. In my opinion, in the long run, a project like the wikipedia is going to have mistakes made, and those mistakes have less impact when those who made them remain sufficiently humble and intellectually honest to own up, ASAP, when they made a mistake. IMO it is even more important for administratorrs to be prepared to consider the possibility they made a mistake, because their mistakes would have more impact. IMO it is even more important for administrators to be prepared to own up to realizing they made a mistake. If you are promoted to administrator do you think you can be open-minded about the possibility that you may make the occasional error in judgment? If you are promoted to administrator can we count on doing your best to openly acknowledge when you realize you made a mistake? Geo Swan 22:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A I've made mistakes -- technical errors, errors in judgement. I can even occasionally be convinced that my opinion about something is wrong. Everything in the wiki is transparent, and can be undone. So it would be pretty pointless to try to deny a mistake. Mistakes should be seen as an opportunity to improve the process, whether it is an administrative process, or a thought process, so that the same mistake is avoided in the future. - Crockspot 03:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally optional question 11 by AldeBaer:

(The question overkill inspired me to once more ask my standard question.) Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

• The first article that popped into my head when I read this question was Hanlon's Razor. I found the article through a "see also" link, and having never heard of the adage, I thought it was hilarious, and good words to live by. Gillian Welch is a dear old friend of mine from before she became well known, so I got very excited when I found her article. Recently, I really enjoyed reading the much improved Fudgie Frottage. I guess I just have a soft spot for tomboys. - Crockspot 20:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Crockspot's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Crockspot: Crockspot (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Crockspot before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support As nominator and since I know he'll do a great job.--MONGO 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Until someone says why not. Moreschi ^Talk 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
3. "Strong supporter of BLP" is a huge red flag, but it turns out that he's one of the (very rare) sensible strong supporters of BLP. Yay. -Amarkov moo! 18:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Good fellow. Good Wikipedian. BenBurch 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong candidate, has a multitude of quality edits and has demonstrated his editing to be neutral and conscientious. Has been involved in editing disputes, and handled himself with a very clear head and good mind for policy. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Good candidate. --Tbeatty 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
7. Support: Is a brilliant candidate. He did have strange time early on but is brilliant candidate now - Pheonix 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. I think he will be a fine admin. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - Good to see a admin who wants to help out at WP:BLPN. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - a good candidate. Does some great gnomish tasks and his contributions definately show he needs the tools and would use them wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Would be fine as an admin. -Lemonflash_(chat) 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Never heard of him (shows how much I know...), but from the nomination statement by MONGO and his follow-up, I see that Crockspot is experienced and will know what to do. The issue raised in Oppose number 1 is insufficient grounds to oppose in my opinion. Shalom ^Hello 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. A fantastic user with experience, and lots of knowledge. Will be a fantastic admin. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
14. Support – a clearly demonstrated need for the tools (excellent work at AIV and related boards), an excellent track record in the civility side of things, and obvious proof that he'll help out with his tools. Happy to support ~ Anthøny 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Easy support. Level headed and has the common sense needed in an admin, he won't abuse the tools. RxS 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Has all qualities to be admin firm against vandals but also impartial and is very civil. Harlowraman 23:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong Support - He's a solid Wikipedian with all around good experience. From the answers to the questions, it looks like he will make a great admin. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Common sense in good measure; dedication to NPOV; he's done a lot of good work here for a while now, and hope to see a good deal more. Antandrus (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
19. No reason not too... Giggy ^Talk 02:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
20. Support I've been on the same side as Bmedley (who opposed) in the rolling row that is waterboarding, I'm european living in the US, and very very far from right wing. I'm sure my views digress utterly with Crockspot in some areas, however he has been very helpful in the recent disputes and has not tried to ram POV down my throat. I probably wouldn't agree with many of his edits, but that is not relevant here. Editing and Admining are separate roles, I don't think he will abuse his powers. Any coach or team captain will tell you that it is a ball and chain, not a 'promotion' - if he's willing to extend his time to helping wiki then I think he should get a go at it. I think he handled himself well, and tried to work towards consensus and mutual recognition - He knows how wiki works. Also, there were a few other offline sockpuppet rows, he worked with me to establish who was what (and who was I, as I invoked my right to disappear and stopped editing with an account). He can mediate, he should get it. Talk:Waterboarding will show how far I am from his views, yet I support. Can an IP vote? 24.7.91.244 03:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment They can vote, but they won't be counted. -WarthogDemon 03:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment All good, though numerically it doesn't count, I think my support, and why, will be useful to the deciders. 24.7.91.244 03:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I was being sarcastic there, sorry. No, you need to sign on in order for admins to count or consider arguments. -WarthogDemon 03:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment To read it? Kidding right? I'd strongly consider a request for admin recall on the decider in that case. Here we have both extremes of the waterboarding wars supporting, if an admin deliberately chose not to even bring that into consideration (at a weighting they saw fit) they really should not be in that role. 24.7.91.244 03:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment Gah - maybe they are. Now I'm confused. I thought you can't but according to the main page, you can voice your opinions so . . . bah, pay no attention to me. Sorry for wasting your time. -WarthogDemon 03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
            • Comment No worries, thanks for checking tho. Feel free to delete this comment thread in its entirety to tidy if you wish. 24.7.91.244 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Just FYI, it's bureaucrats (not admins) who close RfAs. IP comments can be considered by the closing bureaucrat, but won't be counted as a "vote" per se (though this isn't really a vote at all, according to some). Walton^{alternate account} 18:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment As noted above, only registered Wikipedians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "general comments" and "discussion" sections. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
21. Support It's about time somebody nominated Crockspot. He's a very knowledgeable Wikipedian, was very active on the BLP patrol, is an active vandal fighter, and has impressed me a great deal with his clear reasoning in every dispute I've been able to witness. He's also very skilled at simmering down a hot situation. We need more admins like him. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Well-rounded. Lara♥Love 03:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
23. Support I suppose I can give my trust. Jmlk17 05:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Nom. said it best! Politics rule 05:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
25. Support per nomination. A very solid editor who will use the admin buttons very well. I'd also like to note that the oppose !votes are some of the worst I've seen. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - No reason to oppose. --Hirohisat ^Talk 05:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
27. Support No reason to oppose and the oppose reasonings do not concern me at all Corpx 06:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
28. Support A trusted user. Would make a great admin. --Aude (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Fair-minded, sane, valuable member of the Project.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
30. Crockspot's been doing some good work around the place for a while now. I trust this user. Daniel→♦ 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Yes. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
32. Support fine editor, oppose reasons don't convince me. Melsaran 15:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
33. Support' ~ Wikihermit 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
34. Support - good user, will make good admin. Opposing arguments are this: 1) he said that vandalism warnings should be increments (zomg!), 2) he's conservative and I don't like him, 3) he's a conservative American - in fact, he's Quebeci (how do you spell that?). GRBerry brings up a significant point, but, as he says, no one bats 1.000. Will make a fine admin. The Evil Spartan 16:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Even headed, good guy. Arkon 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. No problems. Walton^{alternate account} 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
37. Support, Level-headed, and was pivotal in getting WP:BLP working. A balanced, fair editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - Garion96 (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Sounds dedicated and well-rounded, no reason not to trust. --Android Mouse 21:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
40. Strong Support per the user's answer to Q5. This is exactly the frame of mind that I think is ideal for an admin working with AIV - The ability to apply judgment where judgment is needed rather than blindly follow a process. I am impressed. Trusilver 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
41. Support seems to be the ideal candidate for the mop. Only concern is the NPOV issues mentioned below, but by the very fact that they have been mentioned, I trust that these will remain minor and in the past. May the edit be with you --Bennyboyz3000 02:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
43. See this bloke everywhere, had him in my 'stop mistaking him for an admin' basket for a long time. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
44. Support - Civil and helpful. Understands policy, and is likely to use the tools responsibly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
45. Support agreeing with what Siva1979 said; I don't think this user will abuse the tools either. Acalamari 18:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
46. Support the oppose issues are not that big a concern with me --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
47. Support John254 19:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
48. Strong Support - Crockspot is a class act. MoodyGroove 23:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
49. Support Carlossuarez46 23:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. While Crockspot and I haven't always seen eye to eye on every issue, I've always appreciated his level headed approach. I believe he will take any criticism constructively and shouldn't go off on any admin-related-rampages. Good luck! - auburnpilot talk 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
51. Support From what I have seen, he would rather worth with than against editors he may come to disagreements with. MrMurph101 02:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Excellent nominator; excellent candidate... and I'm very far to the left, thank you. Off-wiki partisanship is irrelevant to mophood, unless it inspires problematic on-wiki behavior. There is clearly no evidence of such misconduct in this case. Xoloz 03:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
53. Support - Trustworthy user unlikely to abuse the tools. Also, diversity of thought is welcome in Wikipedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
54. Support - Handled WP:BLP dispute on Richard Rossi very WP:COOLly given the heat of the dispute, though I would have preferred that the editor do more investigation before taking sides. THF 09:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
55. Support A well rounded editor who's learned by experience on Wikipedia, which is surely what we want. All too many of the opposing statements seem to be based on nothing more than accusing him of a political POV on the basis that it's not their POV. Nick mallory 12:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
56. Support. I particularly like his activity with WP:BLP issues, and feel a little guilty for not being more involved in that area myself. ElinorD (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
57. Support - huge wealth of experience - lots of article contributions (will be a huge help to newbies) and over 1,000 Wikipedia space contribs - a super-strong candidate. :-) Lradrama 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
58. Support - Would make a fine addition to the admin team. I've always been impressed with crockspot's even-handedness and knowledge of wikipolicy. Dman727 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
59. Support We need someone with experience to fix the backlogs •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
60. Support. Responsible and trustworthy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
61. Support. Though I'm familiar with him from various policy pages, I was unaware of his political leanings until someone mentioned them here. That says a lot in his favor. Raymond Arritt 05:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
62. Support Eusebeus 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
63. Support per vast right-wing conspiracy. Besides, seems trustworthy and civil, but that's really just the icing on the vast right-wing conspiracy cake. —AldeBaer 10:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
64. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
65. Support. A little aggressive but willing to listen and compromise. --PTR 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
66. Support per PTR, auburnpilot, Mr.Murph101, and Xoloz. Has agreed to work with me on Hunting license, which proves that WP makes strange bedfellows. Bearian 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
67. Support Crockspot came to Wikipedia with editing habits from his blogging at Conservative Underground, and took a few weeks to settle into the style and tone of Wikipedia editing. Although conservative in his political philosophy, he seems fair, and I speak as one who has sometimes been on the other side of issues. As an illustration, he spoke strongly to delete the article on Andy Stephenson [20] but much later made sure that Stephenson received appropriate mention in the article about Stevenson's one-time boss Bev Harris[21] He has been a valuable contributor in articles in his areas of interest, and has been an active member of the Living People Patrol, enforcing the WP:BLP policy. He has reverted vandalism and has posted appropriate warnings. I believe he will use the Admin tools fairly and effectively. Edison 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
68. Support I think he would make a fine administrator. People who participate in the kind of articles he does are bound to draw opposes from the other side. I feel he has handled himself admirably. --SGT Tex 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — Somebody who believes sysops are "superior" will not make a good sysop. Also, a user can remove messages from their talk page if they wish.[22] Matthew 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

   Could you show us why you think he believes sysops are superior? -Amarkov moo! 18:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

   "He removed a warning from an admin", that says it all. Matthew 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

   Just to clarify, that user was vandalizing, and was immediately removing warnings, which caused subsequent patrollers to leave him a level one warning. He needed to have a higher level warning. He was blocked not long after, I believe. Honestly, I think I was just pointing out the general identity of the previous warner. Any user can issue a warning, justified or not. One from an admin tends to be justified, just because of the nature of their experience and knowledge of policy. Removing messages from your user talk page is fine, but doing it to aviod sanctions for vandalism should be pointed out. And technically, IP users do not have the same luxury of removing warnings, because they do not "own" that IP address' user space. - Crockspot 18:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

   That user (Darts777) has been indefinitely blocked--MONGO 19:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

   Matthew, please tell me you aren't coming to the defense of Darts777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). If you look at the history of his/her talk page, you'll see that several other admins and regular users were reverting the page blanking. This editor was obviously being disruptive. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

   That's silly. He was in fact disruptive, but that does not mean that anyone who interacted with him is immune from criticism on how they handled it. Why do people not get this? -Amarkov moo! 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

   Where did anyone claim immunity from criticism? All I can see is Crockspot correctly asking an admin to review his level one warning after this particular user deleted previous level one warnings. He should have been at level 5 and instead he was getting level 1. Nothing wrong with asking an admin to review their warnings because, in fact, no one is immune from criticism. --Tbeatty 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

   I agree that his actions were correct. That doesn't mean Matthew was defending a vandal by saying that they were not. -Amarkov moo! 05:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose [23] This article is protected for several weeks because of edit warring and Crockspot participated in it. Crockspot participates actively in tag team reversions on controversial topics with a handful of other people. Unacceptable. I'm glad Crockspot is not nearly as incivil now as he was just a few months ago is great. The attitude remains, POV editing is more important to Crockspot than the goals of the project or community of users. SchmuckyTheCat

   • I think it is fair for me to point out that the extent of my participation in that edit war consisted of that one single edit that you linked. I made no others, and I discussed it on the talk page. I made one bold edit, and then took it to the talk page. I'm 99% certain that it was the only edit I have ever made to that article. - Crockspot 00:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
     • Confirmed, only one edit by Crockspot in the last 2,000 to that page (goes back to 1 August 2006). GRBerry 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
   • It's hard to say someone is a participant in an edit war which resulted in an article being protected when they have only made one edit to the article in question. WP:EW doesn't apply in Crockspot's case for making ONE edit!--MONGO 04:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   I qualified with "participates in tag team reversions". There are a number of editors with American Conservative POVs who all removed a specific set of material within 24 hours, none of them more than once or twice but everyone removing the same material. When an organized group each only reverts once they all stand around and say "who me?" but I don't buy it. SchmuckyTheCat

   The opposite of what you say is also true[24]. I fail to see how one edit constitutes an edit war. If you're opposing based on his politcal leanings, then that is a pretty sorry excuse to oppose. Based on the American flag you have on your userpage with the initials "ITMFA" ("Impeach the mother-f*&%er already") which is regarding impeaching George Bush, this oppose appears to be politically based. That is unacceptable.--MONGO 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   Please assume good faith. Him having different political beliefs does not mean his oppose is based off them. His oppose appears to be more off his accusation of Crockpot "POV-pushing", which I'm not convinced of. --Android Mouse 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose Way too much right-wing POV that I can see but he is nice most of the time which is good. We need neutral administrators not POV fighters who are nice. More administrators from outside the USA too please. Bmedley Sutler 01:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   I'm in Quebec. Crockspot 02:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   I fail to see how/why nationality should fall into play when considering a candidate. -WarthogDemon 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   And your own edits are too left-wing POV, based on what I've seen at Salvadoran Civil War. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   What? I only made two edits on that whole article, and if you feel the killing of Archbishop Romero and many priests and nuns and massacres aren't important quite sufficeintly to be in the lead into, I am at a loss to say what. Sorry. I have heard of 'fuzzy dice' but never 'groggy dice'. Does it have a secret meaning? Thanks. Bmedley Sutler 04:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   Am I to understand that you don't think that conservatives should be administrators? Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Further more, when has left-winging or right-winging ever come into problems with adminship? I've browsed incident pages and whatnot and I don't think I've ever come across an incident where an admin's political position created a conflict. If there have been, would you please show me some examples? -WarthogDemon 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   Bmedley Sutler, why do a person's political views have anything to do with adminship? Is there anything that indicates that he might use his admin tools to push a POV? I don't think so. Melsaran 12:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   Anyway, we need more right wing admins. :-) just joking Walton^{alternate account} 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose - the small percentage of mainspace edits that were not housekeeping (e.g. grammar or vandal reverting) made me uncomfortable because they seem to show bias. This edit, for example shows removal of an accurate image and caption supported by sources; if anywhere, it belongs in that article. Removing it smacks of scrubbing to me. ←Ben^B4 20:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, neither the image nor caption was supported by sources. If you read the source provided, it never mentions Bush as remaining in a state of "utter immobility" or the seven minute time span. All it states is "Bush had been attentive and engaged with the kids, but the warmth had drained from his eyes. He now appeared distracted. Bush finished the lesson and even took a few questions from the children. He then excused himself and walked into the adjacent staff room." [25] I'd say Crockspot acted correctly, and a better source should be provided. Otherwise, it is a non-neutral point of view and potentially original research. - auburnpilot talk 23:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

   I'm hardly a right-winger, but I have to say that image removal was totally acceptable. I won't turn this RFA into a political debate, just wanted to register my basic opinion here. --W.marsh 02:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

   Agree with W.marsh and AuburnPilot. that picture was not legitimate criticism and was instead being used to promote a specific point of view that was not supported by reliable sources. I'm more concerned that editors might have considered that picture a neutral presentation of Bush's response to 9/11 considering it's prominent place in such partisan and polemic works such as Fahrenheit 9/11. --Tbeatty 04:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

   That edit was one of many that disturbed me. I note that the photo and caption has been replaced by other editors without further removal, so far. ←Ben^B4 11:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose per both SchmuckyTheCat and Bmedley. Their concerns are valid, and I have personal experience on the article page they bring up that I can attest to. While Crockspot was by far not the worse one (that honor goes to Tbeatty and JungleCat), he joined in on the attack, by blanking one of the best sourced sections after it was added by clear consensus of over 17 editors, and not discussion on the talk page. This attack came in the form of various far right editors tag teaming to (what can be argued) was to vandalize this article and get it locked in that state under the pretext of a content dispute. I'm still quite angry about what happened. I don't know if he will abuse his tools or not (he probably knows better, and making him a sys op might actually help as he would have more to lose), but if admins are supposed to be the paragons of virtue, models WP citizens, then Crockspot fails on account of the bias and counter productive role he played on this article. His conservative POV/bias became the domiant characteristic of his editing there. Yes, it was just "one revert" but the particular context of that "one revert," and then the subsequent discussions on the talk page, made clear, at least to me, that his role was POV pushing, and not helpful. And when he appeared to be interested in talking about the problems he had (unlike the others, at least), and when he was shown his claims were not true (I can give details if you want), he did not say ,"ok, you're right, I won't oppose it then," he was just silent, and said he would look carefully at all the sources next week (which did not happen). In all his efforts were to suppress information that was counter to his openly conservative POV. It is for these reasons that I oppose. Admins should be those who act in ways that show they are first and foremost interested in neutrality, and encylopedic information of all POVs. His role on that article makes me convinced that his politics got in the way of that all important goal.Giovanni33 08:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, I do not believe that he has a conservative POV bias that conflicts with Wikipedia whatsoever. Crockspot always makes edits that try to improve Wikipedia. POV is not an issue. Look at these edits here[26][27][28] on the Democratic Underground as well as the vast number of citation upgrades he did on that page. Also look at the Chelsea Clinton page where Crockspot removed content that violated BLP here [29] upgraded numerous citations here [30] and even found time to depart from his charity work to revert vandalism here[31][32].

   I also found this revert here [33] of an out-of-the-closet conservative who was placing misinformation about the Crawford Peace House, making it appear that their protest movement was being deflated. Also, look at this edit[34] concerning Dem. Senator Charles Rangel, and this edit[35] concerning Dem. Congressman Nadler. I found these in a few minutes by going through his contrib history, so I'm sure there's alot more. Any other admin's got POV--but Crockspot's clearly won't get in the way.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Appears to be a decent enough editor, however I am concerned that even as an editor Crockspot wants to make clear his attitude to those with whom he disagrees. This message, or a version of it, has been on his talkpage from 2006 until five days before this request for adminship: [36]. A hostile, upfront declaration that if you disagree with Crockspot then you are a fool is far from assuming good faith - in fact it looks very aggressive. That coupled with his provocative and insensitive use of the NRA user box on his user page, gives me cause for concern. The NRA userbox is not needed for Crockspot to conduct himself on Wiki - it is a choice he has made, even knowing, as he must, that there are people who will be shocked at his statement of support for an organisation that attracts criticism. Wiki is a global community - gun control is practiced in most countries around the world. It is an insensitive and ill-considered statement of his personal views that flies in the face of global consensus. I want to make clear that Crockspot being a member of or supporter of the NRA is not the issue - it is that he provocatively proclaims it on his user page that concerns me. SilkTork 07:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   You do raise a good point on the previous user talk page note, but I don't see how the NRA userbox is either provocative or insensitive. I'm also not sure what you mean by "global consensus", you mean a majority opinion? I just can't see a simple statement of opinion or affiliation, no matter how extreme, as being considered provocative or insensitive. If anything, it should be considered a good thing. We now know what his POV is on guncontrol topics. --Android Mouse 07:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   We don't need to know his POV on anything - unless there is a conflict of interest. His neutral editing should speak for itself. Declaring a POV is inviting attention. Declaring a controversial POV is inviting controversy - something unwelcome in a Wiki admin. SilkTork 11:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   Not so sure I could believe a userbox claiming he is a member of the NRA is provocative. This is obviously an international effort, but I personally think that it's good to let people know up front what your "biases" might be. At least as far as his home country is concerned, Crockspot is hardly out in right field on this matter. Currently, 48 states allow a private citizen to carry a concealed weapon and of those a few don't even demand that the citizen have a permit to do so.--MONGO 12:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   I'd like to point out that the message diff link above is NOT the message that has been on my talk page for quite some time, and recently archived. See the archive for the actual message I was using. Sometimes I get a retaliatory warning from editors who I may warn through the process of blp or rc patrol. Anyone is free to criticize me on my talk page. But I may remove it if I feel it is inappropriate. On the NRA userbox, I believe that this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the NRA issue to me. I often get comments about being a conservative, but none about the NRA. I guess if I actually edited gun articles, that would change. - Crockspot 13:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose: I appreciate and support this editor's vandal-fighting as well as his NRA membership, but my concern mirrors Silk's -- I'm worried that this user is simply too aggressive. The "suffer the fools" message is an indicator of that. I've seen Crockspot's posts before and that they seem along the lines of that motto. As a result, I don't think it would be a good idea to vote in "Support" unless this is corrected. In my opinion, admin aggressiveness is one of the most important criterion in the selection process. .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose: I recently had a run-in with this editor that leads me to believe he is unfit for adminship. I admit that I "started it" by reverting an edit he made on page I have watchlisted and then reverting another edit that I noticed in his recent contributions. His subsequent behaviour leads me to question his fitness for adminship: He reverted my reverts (OK fair enough) plus an earlier edit of mine, left two patronizing warnings on my talk page, accused me of sockpuppetry then deleted the discussion and inserted himself into a RfM that I was involved with while claiming to be "uninvolved in this dispute, or with any of the disputants". That same day, he also accused another user of sockpuppetry, though he later recanted. That day he also nominated for deletion the essay on policy shopping immediately after User:Eleemosynary quoted it to him on my talk page. This is all from the day or two that I closely observed Crockspot's editing--to be fair, perhaps it was a bad day for him, and this is not his normal behaviour, but it does make me question whether he's suited for adminship.Yilloslime 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose: I echo the above concerns about aggression, tag-team editing, and edit warring. Crockspot always seems to be either fighting for the inclusion of text that put United States Republican Party operatives in a better light, or which puts more moderate figures in a worse light. Many, many problems have been created by the elevation of politically-motivated editors to the position of administrator --- how revealing that fellow party member User:MONGO is the first to support Crockspot's adminship. Administrators need to be able to see above the brawl, not to gladly descend into it and start throwing punches. On the George Soros page, I pleaded with Crockspot to use common sense in his absolutely adamant stance that Bill O'Reilly's attacks on George Soros must be included on the Soros page. To no avail. — goethean ॐ 18:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   Not only was I the first supporter, but I nominated him for adminship. I did so because I know he'll do a good job as an administrator. Attacking others is nothing new for you, so it's no surprise that you confuse adminship with politics. I highly doubt that Crockspot would be silly enough to ever block anyone he is in a content dispute with, so all these politically based opposes seem to be nothing more than cheap shots.--MONGO 18:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   Just in case anyone isn't aware, the supposed "attack" that MONGO just linked to is an edit in which I placed a link to one of his own comments on my talk page. I linked to one of MONGO's own comments, and he calls that an attack. He then removed the link from my userpage, and threatened to protect my userpage if I posted the link again (this was when he was still an abusive administrator). Presumably he removed it because I was linking to sensitive, private, secret information --- which MONGO had just shared on a Wikipedia talk page and which he links to now. — goethean ॐ 19:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   I have a question Goethean. Would you characterize the many times I have reverted and reported to AIV the latest sockpuppet of Joehazelton, who is a well-known right wing troll who likes to launch vicious personal attacks against liberal editors like you and Eleemosynary, more proof of my agressive POV behavior? Here are just a couple of examples: [37] , [38], [39]. Now, granted, you would not normally be aware of these actions. Perhaps you should consider that I do a lot more than you might be aware of. - Crockspot 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   I didn't say that you don't make positive contributions to WP. But hopefully the bar for adminship is set a bit higher than that. Besides, angry right-wing trolls like Joe Hazelton actually hinder the promulgation of your POV more than help it, so it is unsurprising that you helped to enforce his block. — goethean ॐ 19:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   Goethean, userpages aren't to be used to attack our contributors as you were doing, that is why after you continued to want to do so, a completely neutral admin came and removed it again[40]. There was nothing wrong about me demanding you not misuse your userspace to attack me or misrepresent my reasons for editing this project.--MONGO 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   How does linking to one of your own comments constitute an attack on you, MONGO? How does that work, exactly? — goethean ॐ 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

   After the other admin removed it, did you put it back? Okay, thanks.--MONGO 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose This user is obviously smart and well-intentioned, but he has a lot of learning to do and does not in any way comport himself in the manner I expect from someone with the sysop tools. Your responses to some of the questions say to me that you lack a convincingly strong understanding of the way to apply policy. Also of serious concern is the sometimes downright rude responses in this RFA. The way to respond to incivility or difficult comments and questions is to be more civil, rather than descending to the level of the commentator. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    Can you provide an example of what you found concerning? --Tbeatty 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    His response to Bmedly Sutler in the questions section was an instance of the civility issue. I also disliked his muddled response to the questions regarding blanking and his past conflicts. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BMedley Sutler asked a loaded question, as in "do you still beat your wife?" and, as the article itself states, "the best way to defend yourself against a loaded question is to point out that it is, indeed, a loaded question." Crockspot clearly did just that.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing so does not require the terse, rude language Crock used. Again I say, when others are uncivil, the proper response is not to descend to the level of perpetrator. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I could have been a bit less toothy with Bmedley, but bear in mind that he and I are quite familiar with each other, and have a bit of a pat-him-on-the-back-with-one-hand-and-poke-him-in-the-eye-with-the-other type relationship. I would not have been quite such an ass with an editor who I did not know so well. But your point is well taken, and I will strike some of that comment. - Crockspot 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Leaning oppose "Strong supporter of BLP" is a huge red flag for me too, but I'm not so sure he's one of the sensible ones based on a current AfD. He tried to blank the page based on BLP, and argued for a "speedy delete" based in part on it being an "attack page." In fact, from the references to "cognitive liberty" and "prisoner of conscience" and "FreeCasey.org," it's obvious that his supporters want the page. The article will likely be deleted on notability grounds, but his resort to BLP is disturbing. I'm also concerned by his ties to the GabrielF anti-conspiracy crowd, who in fighting conspiracy-pushers I feel have gone overboard in the other direction (and are also selective in which conspiracy theories they target). However, before committing to an oppose based on what may be an isolated case, I feel I need to investigate further. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   My position on that AfD is evolving through current discussion, which began on WP:BLPN after the nominator announced he would AfD the article rather than speedy delete it as an attack page. I can be swayed through thoughtful discussion and good faith effort. - Crockspot 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, you've backed off after another editor made his points. My concern is that, as an admin, you could have deleted the page before any "thoughtful discussion" took place. However, nobody bats a 1.000, and I won't oppose based on one case, only if I see a pattern. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   I understand your concern. There's a decent possibility that I would have deleted it, but I think I would have tried to get a comment or two on BLPN before doing so. Even so, there's nothing that I could delete that couldn't be reviewed and restored by any other admin directly, or by the community through DRV. I'm sure I'll blow a call once in a while, and I'm sure that there will always be someone on hand who isn't shy about calling me on it. - Crockspot 04:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

   Noted. And while it does somewhat dampen my support, the correct action here is ambiguous enough that I can't change my opinion based on this one incident. -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral leaning oppose per Groggy Dice and BenB4; some of the oppose comments are rather worrying, though not enough to make me oppose. Nevertheless, concerns over POV and civility prevent me from supporting at this time. --John 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)