Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Brian G. Crawford

Apparently, some users disagree with my methods. I must insist, however, that I have been trying to create and maintain a respectable encyclopedia, although many of my efforts have failed. I really wish that this RfC would be closed, as I have quit participating in Wikipedia. If you guys get off on calling people to the carpet, by all means, continue until till your heart's content, but I must make it known that I find this behavior cliquish and juvenile. I can tell when I'm not wanted. I'd really appreciate it if someone could delete my user and talk pages and my account and this RfC, if possible. I use my real name, and it's not hard to figure out who I am in real life. I'd hate to have this pop up in my future and bite me in the ass, so I'd appreciate if you could see fit to call off your hearing. It's clear to me that I don't agree with a lot of Wikipedia policies, including the oft-used tactic of bullying other users by quoting policy to people who are already very aware of what policy is. I'd rather not respond by attacking the tactics of those who have accused me. I believe in the Golden Rule, and I also dislike making ad hominem attacks, even if I am rarely attempted to make very slight ones. Just let it go, people. I'm gone. Quit wasing your time and get back to working on an encyclopedia instead of pushing pencils and initiating hearings and judicial proceedings. I really don't need this hassle. Please, quit wasting your time. I'm gone. Brian G. Crawford 05:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) 05:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that Brian hasn't taken this RfC in the right spirit- I think everyone contributing has made sensible and reasoned comments that are only intended to help, not hinder or attack. However, given Brian's comments above, I have to point out that he has already 'left' Wikipedia and subsequently returned shortly thereafter ([1])at least once already and also seems to have admitted to using a number of socks in the past ([2], [3]; unless I'm getting the wrong end of the stick?), the accounts of which may or may not have been deleted/made inactive. Based on the possibility therefore that he may still be (and hopefully will continue to be) contributing to the encyclopaedia in some shape, I would suggest that the RfC continue to some sort of conclusion. Badgerpatrol 22:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While it was fine to leave it for a while, I think that a solution is needed now that Brian's back and not being very nice. Does anyone have any ideas what a suitable solution might be? --Apyule 14:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Today's last three edits were beyond the pale. I don't think it's him, but whether it is or not, I brought it straight to [[4]].

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it most obviously is him. And let's not be fooled by the self-serving comments both above and below. Brian G. Crawford has never left wikipedia, but instead has been editing (mostly on AfD) consistently for the last month through a series of sock puppet accounts. While insulting participants in this discussion and the encylopedia as a whole. Sad really. --JJay 01:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments in the third AfD toward Jeff were absolutely not meant as a personal attack. Perhaps it was a backhanded compliment. Jeff goes to great, often ridiculous lengths to save articles from the maws of AfD. He did a decent job with Hogging after I had it speedy deleted as a repost, and he earned enough of my grudging respect for me to vote to keep the article when it went to AfD. In his zeal, however, he accused me of tagging it for speedy deletion after he began working on it, which is not true, and which the article history proves. Honestly, I don't like a lot of Jeff's work or his causes. He kills so many righteous AfD's it's not funny. Somebody ought to open an RfC on him just for that. His vision for this encyclopedia doesn't match mine or even the majority vision. He's too hung up on indie bands and internet fads best forgotten. My point was that even Jeff could not make an article out of Cleveland steamer, and that was a compelling reason to delete it, because I've seen Jeff save some pretty worthless crap in my time and bring it up to standards. He's said some snide things to me in the past, insinuating numerous times that I have hang-ups on sexual topics. On the contrary, I try to make the sex articles better, because, like many human beings, I like to fornicate with numerous female partners in numerous, sometimes kinky ways. What I don't appreciate are crappy sex articles that are nothing but crude jokes or articles about practices engaged in by Joe Blow and his bondage buddies out there somewhere in the middle of nowhere documented only on said buddies' website. If you want this website to be taken seriously with regard to sexual topics, there are a lot of articles like Cleveland steamer that need to go. I tried fighting that war, and won a few battles, but lost a lot more. I have faith, however, that when Wikipedia is edited professionally the first time, and it will be, that kind of shit will go in the blink of an eye. Face it guys, a lot of these articles like Cleveland steamer make Wikipedia look like a sad, fucking joke. That's why I'm not interested in contributing real content to what most of the world regards as a pretentious blog containing more errors than facts. Brian G. Crawford 03:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bye then, Brian. Badgerpatrol 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys don't want Brian on wikipedia fine, but at least allow his account and name to be deleted and move on with his life. Most everyone here uses some pseudonym, so if you were in Brian's shoes under the safe guise of another name, the implications of this matter would probably be pretty trivial. But Brian did at least have the courage to use his real name for all to see, and it seems a little too much for Brian to bear the burden of beign booted from wiki, but also without a safe boundary into his real life. Please delete these pages and his account; despite how much you rationalize the need for this, there is no good in what is being done here. Sunny_Lewis 01 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the user's first edit to Wikipedia[5]. Badgerpatrol 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a keen observation Badgerpatrol. Promise me you will continue to dazzle us all with your extensive 'patrol' acumen.

Actually, I did post one edit before [[6]] , although I'm quite a rook to "wiki" editing and my name is in red and unlinked. I checked back the other day on the page I commented on in which Brian Crawford had posted. My one and only little edit simply was calling for a better standard to a page he edited, as it seemed antiquated, subjective, and a little stereotypical. I clicked on his name and found this community reaction against him. Perhaps you all need other hobbies. And Badgerpatrol, perhaps you need to get out of the wikipedia donut shop and be a better credit to your policing force. Sunny_Lewis 01:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC

Whilst I generally dislike the complete "disappearing" of material and history, I accept that there are sometimes valid reasons for it being done; in this case, for the reason you gave. However, Brian has already "left" Wikipedia once before, with the privilege of having one of his previous accounts totally erased (*) and the user-page history prior to 14 April 2006 on his current account erased.

Some time later he changed his mind and started editing under his own name again; but this time, with the benefit of having much of his history gone. In other words, he gets to have his cake *and* eat it. Comments which provided clear insight into his modus operandi (which I disagreed with) are now gone. This is really not on.

I have no problems with people not wishing to use their real name on Wikipedia; case in point, myself. However, he made that choice, and had he felt that this had been a mistake, he had his chance to stop following the history/account deletion. He didn't; so why was he able to have his history erased?

It's not my place to say that Brian should or shouldn't edit under his own name again once the ban has expired. However, if he wishes his history to be deleted again, and there are clear justifications for it, then (a) The removal of material should be noted, and (b) He should not be allowed to use his own name again, to avoid a repeat of this situation.

Really, I don't know and I don't care about Brian's real name or personal identity. I just don't want this situation exploited, deliberately or not.

(*) Evidence that I am not making this up; [7]. Click on the account and note that it no longer exists.

Fourohfour 14:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Apparently the account *contribution* history exists. I am unaware if this has been restored, or if this was an oversight on my part. However, the account user page/talk history is gone. Perhaps the account history became visible again when the account was inadvertantly recreated(?) after someone came across it in an old page history and posted {{welcome}} on what they thought was a new account? Or perhaps it was deliberately restored; I don't know. Fourohfour 15:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, your view refers to an acute provocation from a POV pusher. Do you have a link for that or was this via e-mail or something? I want to endorse your outside view but need somewhat more tangible information about what has been going on here. (I found this RfC after reporting - as an unprovoked attack - one of Brian's posts on a page that's on my watch list. Before making the report, I checked for (somewhat recent) provocation but did not find any.) Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 10:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]