Ugly RFA developing - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

NavouWiki

14 Aug 14 Aug

12:11 p.m.

I'm not to familiar with the procedure on this, so bear with me. Is it permissible (appropriate) for me to state an opinion on that in this forum? Navou -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:26 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] Ugly RFA developing (apparently) A google search finds skeletons in RFA candidate's closet. Deleted as BLP (probably mistaken application of BLP, but perhaps legit NPA or privacy issue), restored, cleaned up, still there right now. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot]] I don't know which side is more disturbing at the moment. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Adrian

3:52 p.m.

Phil Sandifer schrieb:

...

On Aug 14, 2007, at 6:26 AM, George Herbert wrote:

(apparently) A google search finds skeletons in RFA candidate's closet. Deleted as BLP (probably mistaken application of BLP, but perhaps legit NPA or privacy issue), restored, cleaned up, still there right now. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot]] I don't know which side is more disturbing at the moment.

I'm torn here. On the one hand, this is symptomatic of much larger problems in RFA - the obsessiveness needed to Googlestalk an RFA candidate is simply too far off the deep end. On the other hand, Crockspot is a querrelous nutter who shouldn't be given adminship, and plenty of !voters recognized that without needing to read his racist trash. So while I think this is over the line, I also think it makes a crappy test case because Crockspot was never going to make admin. -Phil

Well, he has 70+ supports which surely didn't come out of nowhere. And since his '''on-wiki''' behaviour appears to be acceptable, there's no obvious '''on-wiki''' reason this RfA couldn't --or shouldn't, for that matter-- have passed - or why another RfA in several months wouldn't. Adrian

Reply

Steven Walling

5:30 p.m.

There has also been hints of canvassing, as there are several users who have showed up to !vote who have made very few other edits in the recent past. On 8/14/07, Adrian <aldebaer(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

Phil Sandifer schrieb:

On Aug 14, 2007, at 6:26 AM, George Herbert wrote:

(apparently) A google search finds skeletons in RFA candidate's closet. Deleted as BLP (probably mistaken application of BLP, but perhaps legit NPA or privacy issue), restored, cleaned up, still there right now. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot]] I don't know which side is more disturbing at the moment.

I'm torn here. On the one hand, this is symptomatic of much larger problems in RFA - the obsessiveness needed to Googlestalk an RFA candidate is simply too far off the deep end. On the other hand, Crockspot is a querrelous nutter who shouldn't be given adminship, and plenty of !voters recognized that without needing to read his racist trash. So while I think this is over the line, I also think it makes a crappy test case because Crockspot was never going to make admin. -Phil

Well, he has 70+ supports which surely didn't come out of nowhere. And since his '''on-wiki''' behaviour appears to be acceptable, there's no obvious '''on-wiki''' reason this RfA couldn't --or shouldn't, for that matter-- have passed - or why another RfA in several months wouldn't. Adrian _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

George Herbert

8:44 p.m.

On 8/14/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 8/14/07, Adrian <aldebaer(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

Phil Sandifer schrieb:

On Aug 14, 2007, at 6:26 AM, George Herbert wrote:

(apparently) A google search finds skeletons in RFA candidate's closet. Deleted as BLP (probably mistaken application of BLP, but perhaps legit NPA or privacy issue), restored, cleaned up, still there right now. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot]] I don't know which side is more disturbing at the moment.

I'm torn here. On the one hand, this is symptomatic of much larger problems in RFA - the obsessiveness needed to Googlestalk an RFA candidate is simply too far off the deep end. On the other hand, Crockspot is a querrelous nutter who shouldn't be given adminship, and plenty of !voters recognized that without needing to read his racist trash. So while I think this is over the line, I also think it makes a crappy test case because Crockspot was never going to make admin. -Phil

Well, he has 70+ supports which surely didn't come out of nowhere. And since his '''on-wiki''' behaviour appears to be acceptable, there's no obvious '''on-wiki''' reason this RfA couldn't --or shouldn't, for that matter-- have passed - or why another RfA in several months wouldn't. Adrian

Yeah. It looked to me like he would pass, prior to that question being posted. It's true that bad cases make bad precedent, but...

And, to follow myself up, Crockspot rather interestingly responded in detail taking the high road and explaining. I didn't expect *that*. Wow. Reason broke out! -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Reply

Steven Walling

9:24 p.m.

The thing is, the links are to comments by the subject, not about them. Presently though, the subject has said on the talk "Let's see how this wraps up first, and I may or may not request a blank at that time." On 8/14/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:

...

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, George Herbert wrote:

(apparently) A google search finds skeletons in RFA candidate's closet. Deleted as BLP (probably mistaken application of BLP, but perhaps legit NPA or privacy issue), restored, cleaned up, still there right now.

The BLP article says that unsourced contentious material about living people should be removed from articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. A RFA is, I believe, in project space. Most Google searches don't produce sources that count as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. So it's unsourced contentious material and needs to be removed under BLP. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Matthew Brown

9:34 p.m.

On 8/14/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I think that it's a novel interpretation to extend that from "biographical article subjects" to "Wikipedia contributors".

I also, when it comes to current discussion about the behavior of a Wikipedia contributor. However, I am generally sympathetic to at the very least blanking such pages so that they don't show up in Google searches after the discussion is done. -Matt

Reply

David Goodman

15 Aug 15 Aug

9:05 a.m.

Well, the postings have now been admitted by the subject, who clearly does not repent of them or think them shameful. On 8/14/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:

...

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, George Herbert wrote:

The BLP article says that unsourced contentious material about living people should be removed from articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. A RFA is, I believe, in project space. Most Google searches don't produce sources that count as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. So it's unsourced contentious material and needs to be removed under BLP.

I think that it's a novel interpretation to extend that from "biographical article subjects" to "Wikipedia contributors".

The BLP policy says that it extends to both biographies of living persons and "biographical material about living persons in other articles." All Wikipedia contributors are living people.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source (specifically disclaimed); your logic, taken to its conclusion, would suggest that we cannot use negative incidents in our own edit histories as discussion fodder for RFAs.

You're right; the BLP policy should be changed to allow such things. There's no need to have a policy which is supposed to be violated dozens of times a day. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

Reply

Andrew Gray

2:25 p.m.

On 14/08/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Wikipedia is not a reliable source (specifically disclaimed); your logic, taken to its conclusion, would suggest that we cannot use negative incidents in our own edit histories as discussion fodder for RFAs.

Didn't we rehash this debate recently? A source can be generally unreliable and yet still reliable for the purposes of determining what it itself said... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Reply