Crockspot RfA, Unsuccessful Options

[SenseMaker]

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.

[Infoboy]

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.