Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Clawson: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:31, 19 March 2007 editDorftrottel (talk | contribs)14,762 editsm included the now-striked "tentative"← Previous edit Revision as of 21:50, 19 March 2007 edit undoClawson (talk | contribs)7,011 edits →[]: rp Kncyu38Next edit →
Line 76: Line 76:
'''Neutral''' '''Neutral'''
*:(Changed to oppose) I'm not sure what to make of ]. The other user is obviously quite impatient and also uncivil, but Clawton doesn't seem willing or capable of understanding the underlying argument, that the ] lies with the user including information (and from the little that I can deduct, the source or at least the quotation doesn't actually back up the contested statement). However, I'm ready to support in case of an explanation. —] (] • ]) 08:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC) *:(Changed to oppose) I'm not sure what to make of ]. The other user is obviously quite impatient and also uncivil, but Clawton doesn't seem willing or capable of understanding the underlying argument, that the ] lies with the user including information (and from the little that I can deduct, the source or at least the quotation doesn't actually back up the contested statement). However, I'm ready to support in case of an explanation. —] (] • ]) 08:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:The argument, as I see it, is ''not'' whether Richthofen was Jewish, but ''whether the source cited is reliable.'' The cited source is a published book. The anons (and newly registered Wikipedian who was, until yesterday, one of the anons) claiming lack of Jewish ancestry have nothing but original research and a single post on an Internet forum saying that the book is wrong. I'm quite open to the idea that the book may be wrong, but we should not remove reliably and properly cited information based on uncited, unpublished original research any more than we can include uncited, unpublished original research in the first place. In that case, the burden of evidence lies on those claiming the source to be invalid or unreliable, which is clearly what's being claimed here.--''']]''' 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)



'''Comments''' '''Comments'''

Revision as of 21:50, 19 March 2007

Clawson

Voice your opinion (30/3/0); Scheduled to end 04:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clawson (talk · contribs) - I've been on Misplaced Pages since September of '04, back when having 3000 edits was "a lot" and anything over 1000 pretty much guaranteed you'd been around long enough for a mop and bucket. My activity here has been pretty steady ever since, with a few small wikibreaks interspersed in there for real life, etc. I believe the time has come to ask the community for its trust with the admin tools, as I'm very tired of seeing anon IP vandals (in particular) singlehandedly occupy the time of multiple users in reverting their mischief on pages like Battle of New Orleans. Those of you who've interacted with me over that time span know that while I may not always be the easiest person to get along with, I do strive to be fair and objective, two qualities which I feel to be vitally important in any Misplaced Pages administrator.--chris.lawson 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As self-nominator, I accept, of course.--chris.lawson 05:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'm more than happy to assist with page moves, protection/de-protection, vandalism follow-ups (being able to actually block users after issuing four warnings will be an incredibly useful ability), etc. My areas of interest in Misplaced Pages (largely aviation and numismatics, with a smattering of other random topics thrown in) seem to be particularly devoid of administrator assistance at times, and it would be nice to be able to help out the WikiProjects of which I'm a member without having to track down an admin for help all the time.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Boy, this one's tough. If you look through my recent edits, probably 90% of them are RC patrol of my own watchlist, and while that's a dirty job that someone has to do, it isn't really anything I'm particularly proud of. My contributions to ATR 42 and ATR 72 have gone a long way toward making the articles useful, and I think the core group of us working on Comair Flight 5191 did a damned fine job. I also made some pretty substantial contributions to Dime (United States coin) way back when (I might even have been the originator of the structure the now-Featured Article has; I don't remember). As far as admin-type stuff, I think I did a pretty good job with Copperchair's RfAr, which went all the way up the chain of dispute resolution.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: See above re: Copperchair and also the Talk archives for Comair Flight 5191. I have tried, throughout the various disputes, to hear both sides of the argument and to support my position with facts and policies as reasonably as possible. I do not like for edit disputes to escalate all the way to RfC or RfAr, but if another editor is willing to push it that far, I won't hesitate to bring the issue to the attention of uninvolved parties who can offer a fresh perspective on the issue. I believe very strongly in building consensus first and using formal dispute resolution as a last resort.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - why not? --BigDT 05:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - the user has an extensive history of excellent editing, vandal-reversion and carrying editing disputes through talk pages. The only problem I can find is a series of 'rvv' edit summaries for someone who reverted mebibyte to megabyte - eg . While the user was wrong to do this, it's not vandalism. - Richard Cavell 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I don't see a problem here. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Looks good to me! Kukini 06:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I'd prefer more wiki-space edits, but all the other pro's more than make up for it. The Rambling Man 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support will definitely make a good admin. - Anas 10:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oh yes I've seen this editor around many times and this edit proves that he's a very fair and balanced editor. -- FayssalF - 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Been around long enough to know policy. See no reason not to support.↔NMajdan•talk 13:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Terence 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support looks alright.-- danntm C 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support —dgiesc 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Qualified and capable, no reason to withhold the tools. Agent 86 18:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Michael 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support A good potential admin.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong support per above. Yuser31415 21:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support -well same as the The Rambling Man but he does have a lot of experience and deserves the mop....--Cometstyles 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support A few concerns, but still definately a good candidate. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Clawson shows a level head and a decent understanding of policies. He's been around long enough (and been mostly active during that time) to understand how things work. I think he'll do fine with the mop and bucket. ···日本穣 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - enough main space edits in article writing and counter-vandalism to offset lowish project space contributions. Addhoc 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Joe I 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - Can be trusted with the tools for which Clawson has an obvious need. -- Jreferee 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, despite lack of wiki-space edits. There is both a reason for trust and a need for administrative tools, and I see no reason to believe that the candidate would jump head first into a policy dispute and start blasting without first doing the appropriate policy checks. --Scimitar 19:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support semper fictilis 18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Most definitely.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Shoop da Woop support: strong candidate, will do great things for the project. ⇒ SWATJester 20:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) 04:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Weak per Xoloz - NYC JD (interrogatories) 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Low level of activity in wiki-space suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Tentative oppose, changed from neutral. My concern from below still stands, but this pushed me over the edge. However, I'm still willing to hear Clawson's explanation for misunderstanding another user so grossly and with apparent intention, going so far as to call his tone "anti-Semitic". —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, my oppose is not tentative any more after I witnessed more of Clawson here, where he doesn't even once reply to complaints by established users concerning his behaviour on the Comair Flight 5191 article and its talk page. User doesn't seem to know, understand or comply with WP:OWN, nor deal well with allegations of the kind. But he certainly knows how to cite policy in a level-headed way worthy of an admin. Sorry if I sound a bit sarcastic, but as it is, this RfA is going to succeed, and I seriously can't approve of that. See also several examples of edit summary usage: , , and . —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. I'm worried about his severe lack of experience with process, and the WP:ABF shown by kncyu isn't helping things. >Radiant< 10:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  • (Changed to oppose) I'm not sure what to make of this. The other user is obviously quite impatient and also uncivil, but Clawton doesn't seem willing or capable of understanding the underlying argument, that the burden of evidence lies with the user including information (and from the little that I can deduct, the source or at least the quotation doesn't actually back up the contested statement). However, I'm ready to support in case of an explanation. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The argument, as I see it, is not whether Richthofen was Jewish, but whether the source cited is reliable. The cited source is a published book. The anons (and newly registered Wikipedian who was, until yesterday, one of the anons) claiming lack of Jewish ancestry have nothing but original research and a single post on an Internet forum saying that the book is wrong. I'm quite open to the idea that the book may be wrong, but we should not remove reliably and properly cited information based on uncited, unpublished original research any more than we can include uncited, unpublished original research in the first place. In that case, the burden of evidence lies on those claiming the source to be invalid or unreliable, which is clearly what's being claimed here.--chris.lawson 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The two oppose votes and the neutral thus far have expressed a concern that I anticipated might come up. In particular, I would like someone to answer this question: how does one gain (or demonstrate) "experience with policy on protections and blocks" without being an administrator? While my edit history can't possibly show it, as a fairly active vandal- and linkspam-fighter, I am quite aware of the policies in place regarding page protection and user blocking, and I would much rather err on the side of caution and do nothing than inadvertently run afoul of a policy with which I am not intimately familiar.--chris.lawson 16:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "experience with policy on protection" is rather silly because very few editors edit the protection policy, and obviously non-admins can't protect. Experience with process, on the other hand, is gained by working with process, and there are many such open to non-admins. >Radiant< 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean experience creating policy. I meant experience applying policy. Like knowing when to semi or fully protect, or block, as well as when not to. Maybe you'd call this process. —dgiesc 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, my point was that a non-admin has little chance of showing that they know when to protect a page. >Radiant< 16:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Making valid requests at RPP shows they know the policy. Invalid requests can be a learning experience. —dgiesc 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While I admit it's been a while, I was very active on WP:VIP back when it was still a highly used page (I'm certain that at least some of those edits were lost in all the page moves and splits that went on a while back, as I'm not seeing anywhere near as many edits in my history as I expected to involving that and similar pages) and became very familiar with the administrator process of blocking users for vandalism, 3RR, etc. Page protection is something that I've generally asked for personally from admins I knew rather than making a formal request at WP:RFPP. Again, I plan to err on the side of caution (a practise that keeps me out of trouble in aviation and seems that it would do the same as an admin on Misplaced Pages) and rely on those with greater experience for advice and assistance.--chris.lawson 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)