Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:37, 5 April 2007

Cla68

Voice your opinion (40/1/5); Scheduled to end 12:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cla68 (talk · contribs) - Since joining Misplaced Pages over a year ago, Cla68 has done a lot of work on the Pacific War. He's responsible for raising a number of articles to FA status. I've also seen him dealing with vandalism and POV-pushing. I believe he'd make a good administrator. —wwoods 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Cla68 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A little about my contributions to the project...I've been the primary editor on 11 Featured Articles (FA). I've started around 30 articles, mostly about military history events or biographies. My edit count is about 4,300 in mainspace.

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: Basically any area that needs administrator attention, especially if an issue hasn't been responded to on any of the administrator noticeboards. I monitor the Administrator Noticeboard and Incidents pages and notice that not every question or concern gets answered, even a "no administrator action required" response. I hope to help respond to more editor concerns or questions. I'd also plan to monitor the "speedy delete" (both article and image) and AIV pages to help keep things moving. I "watch" a lot of pages, mainly military history, martial arts, or Japan related, some of which go through phases of high-vandalism, and would semi-protect when necessary.

One area of special concern to me is Eric Goldman's prediction that spammers, in his opinion, will eventually "overwhelm" Misplaced Pages's administration and destroy the credibility of the project. So far that doesn't seem to be happening, in large part due to aggressive monitoring and action by administrators to prevent it. I would hope to participate in this effort also. Cla68 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Of the FA's that I've been heavily involved with, I'm probably most proud of Operation Ten-Go, Battle of Savo Island, Battle of the Eastern Solomons, Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, and Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. I'm also proud to have assisted other editors in taking their articles to FA by copyediting or giving advice, including Ohio Wesleyan University and Aleksandr Vasilevsky. In addition, I participate in peer reviews and "A" class article reviews in the Military History Project.

I've helped resolve a couple of edit/content disputes, but the one I'm most "pleased" about concerned a section in the Japanese war crimes article: . I've also helped improve articles by adding infoboxes, reference lists, adding images, and creating campaignboxes. I've started several image galleries of related graphics in the Commons and added Commons links to those galleries to the related articles, more than I can list here. I've created one category for friendly fire. I reorganized the section headings in the Kyokushin article (which was really a mess before) and have happily watched as other editors have filled in the necessary information and have turned the article into something much better than it was.Cla68 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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: I've tackled what I've observed to be POV-pushing in many articles and this has led to some confrontations with other editors, particularly in: Global Warming, Gary Weiss (most of the comments in this dispute were permanently deleted), Allied war crimes, Japanese war crimes, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Masutatsu Oyama, among others. Over time I believe I've become better at reasoning with other editors without getting too heated, even when the other editor in the dispute tries to bait or incite a pejorative response. I'll usually state my position and reasoning on the talk page or edit summary and boldly make the change. If it starts to turn into a edit war now I'll usually just leave and come back and try again later. I believe that most of the articles I list above are now more neutral than they used to be, I hope in part due to my efforts. Cla68 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

4 What's your stance on blocking?

A : "Very carefully." At times in the past when I've participated in discussions on the Administrators Incident Noticeboard, I've called for blocks on editors and then seen administrators give them only a warning with an explanation for why they didn't block. In those instances I usually end up agreeing with the administrators rationale. This has taught me that I would need to carefully consider each instance without reacting with a "knee jerk" block. Blocking should be a last resort for an editor who refuses to correct their behavior by other means such as persuasion or warnings. Cla68 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Cla68's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Weak support. I'm worried about all the "He wrote lots of featured articles!" stuff, since the implication I see is that writing featured articles is partly what adminship is about. But it's easy enough to deal with when an admin tries to use their tools to better write featured articles, so I can't oppose. -Amarkov moo! 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Michael 03:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Looks like one of the core editors we have in military history but I'm underwhelmed with the purposed need for the tools and his answer to Q1. Still, he's a quality editor, his edits are extensive across the entire spectrum of wikipedia and I see no real red flags. NeoFreak 05:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, somewhat reluctantly. Oh, not because I have any concerns about him as an editor or potential admin. On the contrary, I just don't want him to be burdened with tasks that take him away from writing FA articles. ;) More seriously, Cla68's contribution history suggests that he is an excellent editor and I see no reason he shouldn't have admin tools if he wishes to use them. I find the answer to Q1 satisfactory as it suggests a balance between involvement in admin tasks (at AN/I, CSD, and AIV) and continued editing. -- Black Falcon 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Per nomination. —wwoods 06:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Support per Black Falcon - please don't give up what you're doing! The Rambling Man 07:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Support per strong answers to the questions. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Support absolutely, seems like a good user. - Anas 10:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Support per nom and answers to the questions. Gidonb 11:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Support as per all the above. -- FayssalF - 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I don't see what all the fuss is about. I find WP:1FA strange, but how can you say no to 10 FAs? If that doesn't show commitment to advancing the project, I don't know what does. YechielMan 14:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

    Um... there's a fuss? I'd hate to see what no fuss looks like, then... -Amarkov moo! 14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

12. Terence 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Support; seen him around, like user's attitude. Tizio 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
14. He seems reliable. Support. James, La gloria è a dio 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
15. An experienced user who's cut his teeth in the productive, collegial atmosphere of the military history WikiProject can be expected to have his priorities straight. --Michael Snow 16:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
16. Support as candidate seems to be a very responsible and trustworthy editor. I see no reason to not twiddle the bit. ···日本穣 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Not a big deal, and seems like a fine canidate unlikely to abuse the tools. - Denny 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
18. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
19. SupportI beleive this will be beneficial for the WikiReform Group's Cause Sethdoe92 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
20. Support looks good.-- danntm _C 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
21. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. No reason to oppose. -Mschel 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Nice work with the featured articles. User seems good for adminship. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
24. Support looks like a good faith editor Anynobody 06:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - excellent editor. One of the easiest and surest votes I have ever cast.--Looper5920 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. Admins should be good writers first, and this one definitely is. No reason not to trust with the tools. Coemgenus 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - no reasons to oppose. Walton 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    Support looks like a good editor.-- danntm _C 18:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC) um, you did that already --Spartaz 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

29. Support - good editor with plenty of experience. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
30. Support I support this candidate to be an administrator based on a review of work done. I do not personally know the candidate nor do I have a stake in the outcome.Dereks1x 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Take that mop. Abeg92contribs 13:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Looks good to me. James086 15:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
33. Support - We need admins with good FA understanding. In addition, Cla68 is trustworthy. -- Jreferee 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Garion96 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
35. Support —Quarl 2007-04-02 11:12Z
36. Support for good answers to questions and very impressive contributions to project. That being said, I think you are probably more valuable to WP as a contributor than an admin, so, like others above, I hope you won't let the admin stuff distract you from the writing.--Kubigula (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
37. Support --A. B. 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
38. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
39. Support, sure why not.--Wizardman 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. Great, great editor.--Yannismarou 13:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
41. Support, of course; absolutely amazing editor in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I was concerned a few months ago about Cla's apparent support for Wordbomb, a very abusive sockpuppet and cyber stalker, who was harassing Mantanmoreland and trying to "out" a few editors, myself included. Cla's behavior was so inappropriate that I briefly wondered whether he was another Wordbomb sockpuppet. Cla first tried to have Gary Weiss deleted. This was an article Wordbomb had been attacking because Gary Weiss, a journalist, had published criticism of someone Wordbomb is associated with in real life. Cla's AfD nomination was absurd, because Weiss is clearly notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. In his nomination, Cla linked to an attack site created by Wordbomb, which libeled Weiss and several other people, myself included. (I was attacked because Wordbomb said I was inappropriately protecting the article against him, and I must therefore be involved in some conspiracy.) The attack site repeated Wordbomb's claim that the main editors of Gary Weiss were all sockpuppets of Weiss. Jimbo deleted Cla's AfD nom because of the BLP issues, so I can't link to it and don't want to anyway because of the attack site, but for anyone who goes looking for it, the link to the site was in Cla's first edit to the page. Cla can't claim that he didn't know it was an attack site, because it's obvious. Cla also added to the article that Weiss's personal website is "self-promotional," as if personal websites are ever anything else. Cla later posted a comment based on Wordbomb's conspiracy theories on Misplaced Pages Review that "high administrators" were "protecting" the article. When I asked Cla what he meant by the comment, he replied that he was being facetious, but I had to warn him again a few days later not to restore Wordbomb's posts that sought to "out" Mantan; the original post was oversighted so I can't supply the diff of Cla restoring it. Can Cla explain his actions? SlimVirgin 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   I'm also concerned that Cla glosses over this dispute in his answer above, when he's asked which conflicts he's been involved in. He mentions Gary Weiss and says most of the diffs had to be permanently deleted, but he doesn't say why, namely that there were serious BLP violations, and that Cla appeared to be supporting one of Misplaced Pages's most notorious sockpuppets. SlimVirgin 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   It seems to me that your analysis here is a bit harsh. Nominating the article for deletion may have been an act of frustration, but judging from the remaining edit history, Cla68 did quite a bit of positive, constructive work on the article as well. Since we don't have access to deleted diffs, how would supporters reevaluate their previous views, as you suggest at WP:BN? Dekimasuよ! 10:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   I think the fact that Cla restored edits that apparently had to be oversighted is enough to tell you that they were BLP violations. Cla was no newbie at the time. He didn't deny having done this, but replied to my warning that he knew he wasn't allowed to post "those kind of accusations," but didn't know he wasn't allowed to restore them, which I find bizarre. You say that the AfD nomination may have been an act of frustration. As I see it, it was either done in support of Wordbomb, or it was a WP:POINT because Cla wasn't getting his own way with his edits; either way, it was inappropriate. You can look for the nom where Cla linked to an attack site, or I can e-mail you a diff. You can also look at Cla's response to me when I asked him what his "high administrator" comment meant, which was based on claims made in Misplaced Pages Review; Cla doesn't deny posting it. I don't know what Cla's intentions were, but there's no question that he was repeating libelous and toxic claims made on Wordbomb's attack site and on Misplaced Pages Review. Also, I forgot to say earlier that, judging by some of Cla's edits, he appears to be based in the same state as Wordbomb. SlimVirgin 10:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. My first time voicing my opinion on one of these, but I've come across Cla68's edits twice and both times I've been perplex at them: diff seems a bit like sourced info is being censored, and diff seems an odd question to ask on an article that concerns an international issue. Anyway, don't bite me and my concerns, oncamera 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral The second diff Oncamera provided makes me wonder if the candidate understands fully the multilingual aspect of Misplaced Pages, although other evidences seem to support that assumption. Neutral pending clarification. Xiner (talk, email) 02:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   I didn't think it was necessary to have that table in the article because the links at the bottom of the page to the equivalent articles in other languages' Wikipedias show how that phrase is written in other languages. Thus, I wanted to state my opinion on the talk page and ask the question about why it was there, and, once answered, I didn't feel strongly enough about it to pursue the matter any further. Cla68 08:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral As per comments above. Booksworm Talk to me! 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral as per comments above. RFerreira 07:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral until then concerns raised by SlimVirgin above are addressed. It may be important to extend the end time of this RfA in light of her concerns... WjBscribe 10:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)