Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:42, 13 August 2007

Revision as of 07:55, 13 August 2007

Line 174:

#'''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.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 08:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

#'''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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crockspot/Archive_02#Notice_to_all_who_intend_to_post_here]. 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. [[User:SilkTork|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 extereme, 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. --[[User:Android Mouse|Android Mouse]] 07:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)