Crockspot RfA, Unsuccessful Options

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Crockspot

The RfA is controversial because of comments Crockspot has made on conservative forums:

I saw on your home Wikipedia userpage that you are a member of a group called Conservative Underground, so I went there. In my opinion I might think from reading there that it is maybe a disturbing site with maybe a lot of hate, against many groups but mostly Gays and Liberals. (maybe others don't think so) I looked at some of your posts. I fear that you maybe aren't right to be an administrator when you make (what I think) homophobic claims like : "Pretty much any dude with "bear" in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass." Link. Could you explain that claim a little more? Isn't that pretty homophobic? (IMO it is, maybe not others) And this one "I've noticed what seemed like an organized, or at least coincidentally coordinated, effort on Wikipedia to scrub any citations of Bill O'Reilly criticizing liberals. They pull every possible justification for it out of their asses, like "O'Reilly not a notable person", "spam links", "O'Reilly is not a reliable source, neither is Fox News.", etc. ad nauseum." Is that a canvassing? The O'Reilly Soros thing was one of your biggest battles (correct) Link Another thread called: "Fags and Firearms" that you posted in is full of homophobic hate, IMO (maybe not others opinions). Is that the sort of NPOV we need from an administrator? Will you keep posting homophobic hate (IMO) there if you become an administrator? Is your possible alleged homophobia the reason you have fighted so hard to keep claims of homosexuality from the Matt Drudge article? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 05:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The comments are disgusting and the candidate owes an explanation to the community before being entrusted with the mop. Candidate admits membership in site where same userid made the offensive comments. Other such comments include:

* "New England fag boy"
* referring to an African American as a "porch monkey"
* "VVAW hippie rejects"
* "I vote JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!"
* "the only way this could get any better is if ... came over here and showed us her tits."
* "french-canadian DUmmy types"
* "If anything, he is encouraging them to off themselves. You guys are starting to sound like a bunch of whiny DUmmies." (apparently approving of encouraging the suicide of GLBT people)

There are also references to deliberate trolling in order to get people banned on liberal forums,[50] but it's unclear who is admitting to what; certainly no disapproval. ←BenB4 10:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering these comments, he is doing quite well at the moment: 71/29/3. A mitigating factor may be that these comments were not made on Wikipedia, rather on a completely distinct site.

I think external actions should be a valid RFA matter. They are for everything else, after all.

More wikien-l FUD:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ust/079157.html

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

So off-site activities are fine evidence for bans, blocks, ANI talks, CheckUsers, and ArbCom, but not RFA?

Will someone that posts on wikien-l PLEASE ask that question? Pretty please? Its mind blowing in it's simplicity.

*sighs* Someone with that kind of bias should not be an administrator - though I'm sure there are other administrators who share the same opinion and don't go broadcasting it off-site in this way.

If they can use external actions for everything else (and nobody seems to bat an eye), they should use them for RFAs as well.

I hate to say "It's only common sense" (sorry Dtobias), but it is.

Wikipedians are so painfully politically correct that its absurd. In the stupid quest to NEVER OFFEND, they're basically being forgiving of this guy Crockspot being a racist, religiously bigoted, homophobic ultra-conservative nutter. Ultra-conservative, sure, I suppose you can be an admin if you leave that brand of insanity at the door (ditto for our liberal friends).

But racism, religious bigotry, and homophobia? Why isn't he running for admin on Conservapedia where he clearly belongs with the other societal rejects that believe that Good People are white Christians that voted Bush 04?

I hope every Wikipedian reading this votes to sink his RFA for the late term abortion it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nship/Crockspot

Shame on MONGO for nominating a homophobe, let alone everything else. Shame on you, MONGO, Tbeatty, and the other supporters there, for supporting homophobia, bigotry, and racism.

Shame on Wikipedia for not violently aborting Crockspot's RFA by immediately ending it. Shame on Wikipedia for supporting homophobia, bigotry, and racism.







For the WR insiders, even more absurd:

# Support. Responsible and trustworthy. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Que? Why is Linda supporting someone who hates Jews and has vomited anti-semetic insanity on other websites? Is she on the outs with Jayjg?

More insanity that no one is stopping:

Now MONGO and the other neo-conservative racist homophobes are tagging "inactive users":

* BernardL (talk · contribs) "First edit by this editor in two weeks[2]"
* Dureo (talk · contribs) "First edit by this editor in two weeks[3]"
* MonsterShouter (talk · contribs) "Limited recent editing history [4]"
* HiDrNick (talk · contribs) "First edit in two weeks[5]"


Whats inactive? This apparently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BernardL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dureo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../MonsterShouter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HiDrNick

So if you're not editing 24x7 your RFA !vote doesn't count so much? Utter gaming of the system to get an outed racist into an administrative role.

SHAME.

*sighs* Someone with that kind of bias should not be an administrator - though I'm sure there are other administrators who share the same opinion and don't go broadcasting it off-site in this way.

If they can use external actions for everything else (and nobody seems to bat an eye), they should use them for RFAs as well.

I hate to say "It's only common sense" (sorry Dtobias), but it is.

Hard to say, who knows he was serious off-wiki? I said a lot of things elsewhere which I was joking about. But I believe that several of the issues raised in the oppose side are enough to oppose and make those supporting reconsider their position without having to go off-wiki to find evidences.

I can't find fault in that logic, Xidaf.

Comment by Cyde

Oppose: Wikipedia administrators must not only appear to be reproach regarding certain NPOV issues, they must also be above reproach.

Cyde, you are not "above reproach". In fact, you have been reproached endlessly since your rfa. Therefore, please hand in your tools and move on. Hypocrite.

Comment by Cyde

Oppose: Wikipedia administrators must not only appear to be reproach regarding certain NPOV issues, they must also be above reproach.

Cyde, you are not "above reproach". In fact, you have been reproached endlessly since your rfa. Therefore, please hand in your tools and move on. Hypocrite.

"I will oppose anyone who seeks these positions of power that doesn't meet these standards. I humbly accept your nomination. Thank you, for granting me adminship. I will oppose anyone except myself who seeks these positions of power that doesn't meet these standards."

Also known as,

"Shit don't lose my bit shit don't lose my bit my low self-esteem is defined by my e-powers shit don't lose my bit..."

Comment by Cyde

Oppose: Wikipedia administrators must not only appear to be reproach regarding certain NPOV issues, they must also be above reproach.

Cyde, you are not "above reproach". In fact, you have been reproached endlessly since your rfa. Therefore, please hand in your tools and move on. Hypocrite.

How can people seeking to exercise authority while hooded with a pseudonymous identity ever be or seem above reproach?

Comment by Cyde

Oppose: Wikipedia administrators must not only appear to be reproach regarding certain NPOV issues, they must also be above reproach.

Cyde, you are not "above reproach". In fact, you have been reproached endlessly since your rfa. Therefore, please hand in your tools and move on. Hypocrite.

How can people seeking to exercise authority while hooded with a pseudonymous identity ever be or seem above reproach?

Easily. Their hoods allow them moral and ethical freedom to be nasty--because it's not them, it's a role they're filling.

In the case of Crockspot, I think it would be a "white hood" that is worn, sadly. For shame.





And uh oh, conservative backlash...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ing_the_project

Stupid. People could have condemned those remarks, but observed there was no indication Crockspot was here to do anything but write a neutral encyclopedia. That would have looked magnanimous, and yet he would have known that his admin actions would be watched for bias. We'd have had a known conservative who would have taken special care to be and seem fair. Instead, people used the RfA as a platform to sanctimoniously proclaim their disgust with homophobia. People will see Crockspot's nomination sunk because of his politics, and they will make sure it doesn't happen to them. To survive the opposition research, people will pick a name, do a lot of RC patrol, and describe themselves as slightly-left-of-center agnostics, sympathetic to libertarianism and the moral teachings of Jesus and Ghandi. Guess what - if only people who share your commitment to social justice can be admins, then you are misusing the project to advance your agenda. Tom Harrison Talk 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we know what Mr. Harrison thinks of 'bears' now. Why is this man an admin? Horrific.

Crockspot has chosen to edit articles that he knows will attract opposition to his viewpoints. His comments on CU, while not the least bit acceptable, were made there, not here. He has clarified that his real life situation is not the least bit homophobic or racist, yet others deride those claims essentially as lies or backpedalling. The fact that we have a number of minimally active editors and at least one banned editor who is evading his ban who have come here to oppose him, demostrates the ugly partisanship that this website is embroiled in. Is there evidence that Crockspot would abuse admin tools by anything that he has done on this website...no, I do not see it. Exactly, so the advice we need to tell Crockspot is...if you want to be an admin, you must abandon editing in a right of center manner, do a lot of vandalism reversion and hang out at IRC, chit-chatting and making friends, letting them know you not the evil Bush loving, gun toting, ultra Nationalist American, homophobic, racist bigot some people claim you are...all based on a few stupid comments he made on some other website.--MONGO 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

MONGO is clearly bitter that conservative opinions and views are marginilazed on Wikipedia. If the majority of people consider your views to be minority fringe views, who's fault is that? The broad community that sees your views as offensive and fringe, or the people espousing the minority fringe views?

I wonder if that sounds familiar to the conservative group of MONGO, Harrison, and Crockspot. They do seem to spend a lot of time marginilizing fringe views of conspiracies on Wikipedia. It appears they get rather upset at being marginilized themselves.

Racism, homophobia, and bigotry are not socially acceptable. It is very moral and ethical of Wikipedia to now take these abusive people to task for their actions, and to limit their ability to harm Wikipedia further inch by inch. Bigotry such as that supported by MONGO, Harrison, Tbeatty, and Crockspot have no place in modern society and these people are now being pushed to the corners. Good.

This post has been edited by Infoboy:

Now standing at 71/37/9. If the RfA process has any integrity left at all (highly doubtful), there is no way he will make it. If he makes it, all the better for us and the ultimate downfall of WP. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Now standing at 71/37/9. If the RfA process has any integrity left at all (highly doubtful), there is no way he will make it. If he makes it, all the better for us and the ultimate downfall of WP. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

If an outed racist is promoted to adminship, that will make for one hell of a news article for this site.

They're going berserk, now. Is this or is this not a FLAGRANT BLP vio?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151274657

I think Harrison's support of that is based on facts...the 9/11 "Truth Movement" is nothing about truth and everything about making a money. Making money based on misrepresentations of the facts, making money by charging entrance fees to come hear their "evidence", making money by writing books filled with misrepresentations and inaccuracies. A "movement" is like the Civil Rights Movement, not some make a quick buck scheme by a bunch of nonscientists, preying on the ignorant and trying to steal their money. --MONGO 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA to ANI spillover, and MONGO getting indignant at being challenged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ts#Socks_at_Rfa

Excuse me, but did you call me a liar?--MONGO 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA to ANI spillover, and MONGO getting indignant at being challenged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ts#Socks_at_Rfa

Excuse me, but did you call me a liar?--MONGO 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to bite my tongue for now.

I'll have more to add later.

This post has been edited by Derktar:

RFA to ANI spillover, and MONGO getting indignant at being challenged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ts#Socks_at_Rfa

Excuse me, but did you call me a liar?--MONGO 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, MONGO's doing more to sink this RfA that Crockpot ever could. I think he thinks he's helping.

For what it's worth, I've always had a fairly high opinion of Harrison, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_harrison/concerns and various other things. I don't want to defend his little comment.

In any event, yeah. You don't need to say "bigotted jackass" to find a reason to oppose. Conservative Admins can get through - I'm a conservative (sort of ... uhm, I'd rather not explain the Canadian Political Spectrum here) and I'm an admin. I'm just not a racist homophobic jackass (though I may be that third one).

I don't think his comment was completly nonesense, I just would have opposed the nomination regardless, some of the issues raised by the opposers are enough to oppose and his answers even more.

RFA to ANI spillover, and MONGO getting indignant at being challenged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ts#Socks_at_Rfa

Excuse me, but did you call me a liar?--MONGO 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, MONGO's doing more to sink this RfA that Crockpot ever could. I think he thinks he's helping.

For what it's worth, I've always had a fairly high opinion of Harrison, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_harrison/concerns and various other things. I don't want to defend his little comment.

In any event, yeah. You don't need to say "bigotted jackass" to find a reason to oppose. Conservative Admins can get through - I'm a conservative (sort of ... uhm, I'd rather not explain the Canadian Political Spectrum here) and I'm an admin. I'm just not a racist homophobic jackass (though I may be that third one).

And now MrGiblets, who's third edit was to support Crockspot, has claimed he stumbled across the nomination here (on AN/I).

Huh.

I don't think his comment was completly nonesense, I just would have opposed the nomination regardless, some of the issues raised by the opposers are enough to oppose and his answers even more.

I just meant - harrison seems to be a good guy who's usually on the ball. He may be overreacting to the perception that Crockspot is being attacked for being a conservative, rather than a nutjob conservative.

I check this, much like I have checked the other stuff reported here and I am saddened to see that problems are generalized and not limited in my limited Wikiuniverse (the articles I was contributed in).

The issue of sockuppetery, underground canvassing and every other crap still there as anywhere else. No kidding if I was Crockspot place I would drop the nomination, at this point this is what a respectful interger person would do.

The guy seems to have a hidden agenda, is a little off in the head (i.e. strange, in the scary, nonsensical, and hateful way), and wears a "mask" to hide all this while editing Wikipedia. Sounds like he'll fit right in!