On 8/14/07, Adrian aldebaer@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Indeed, his RFA is lurching along, and still in the "discretion" percentages ... the outcome is not clear at all. Truth be told, looking over his history, there are a few troublesome incidents, but nothing screams "NO!" - you really have to dig. If the Conservative Underground like wasn't advertised on his userpage, would enough editors have really done enough digging to find the troublesome spots? A lot of RFA evaluations seem very superficial (and this just isn't a complaint about the opposes on my RFA!).
WilyD