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.

[blissyu2]

It is an interesting question: should your behaviour outside of a web site reflect how you are treated on that web site?

Ordinarily I'd say no - you should get a clean slate. I am sure that Nathan would agree with me that he found it absurd that if you were banned from LiveJournal, you could be banned from all of their linked sites just because you had been banned from the first, without doing anything new, and indeed without even investigating why you were banned.

But the issue is that what he has done outside of Wikipedia has demonstrated bias, and that once he had tools he might use that bias to influence. That's where there is an issue.

I mean if someone posted on Wikipedia Review they shouldn't be de-sysopped for it (like Everyking, Guanaco and Karmafist were), without question, nor should people be banned from Wikipedia simply for being members here. However, at the same time, when Karmafist said on Wikipedia Review that he had multiple sock puppets on Wikipedia for the purpose of committing vandalism (and said so in a public post!) then that was probably worthy of a ban. Of course, if that was a joke or something, then that's another matter, but it wasn't a joke.

There are cases, taken on a case by case situation, where what you do on other web sites is relevant. Not because of what the web site is, but because of its relevance to the web site you are using.

Take another example, Amorrow. No, Amorrow would not be banned from Wikipedia Review purely because he was banned from Wikipedia, nor even if they'd banned him for "stalking" (e.g. Skyring was banned for stalking, which was laughable, as he hadn't stalked at all). But if they'd shown us the evidence of the stalking, I think that I could say with confidence that we would have banned him quite quickly here. As it was, we had to wait until he'd committed the same crimes on Wikipedia Review before he got banned.

And if Crockspot came to Wikipedia Review, would we let him in? Possibly, but with derision. And I'm sure he'd end up banned pretty quickly. In theory, he might not. But realistically he probably would. Because his attitude in other places is one which wouldn't be acceptable here.

[GlassBeadGame]

It is an interesting question: should your behaviour outside of a web site reflect how you are treated on that web site?

If off-site behavior is relevant then efforts to determine a users IRL identity is legitimate.