Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68

Cla68

Voice your opinion (41/6/5); Scheduled to end 12:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cla68 (talk · contribs) - Since joining Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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" Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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: [1]. 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)

5 Please respond to the concerns raised today by the oppose !voters. Newyorkbrad 13:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A The site that pointed me towards an article that was apparently being edited by at least two POV-pushers wasn't an "attack" site, but a blog that highlights abuse anywhere on then net, wherever that may be. The article (Gary Weiss) was POV, and I disclosed my involvement with that content dispute in my comments to question #3 above. In addition to the AfD discussion being permanently deleted, many of the comments on the article's talk page were also deleted along with the "history" of them which makes it hard for me to discuss them since no record of those comments now exists. The article is now more neutrally written which was my original aim in getting involved with it. Once the article was more neutral, I didn't have anymore participation with it. A couple of months later, the same two editors from that article appeared on the Administrator's Incidents noticboard and I jumped into that discussion since I had previous history with them. Again, I haven't seen any more reports of problems with those two editors since then and thus, I haven't had anything to do with them since that time. Cla68 14:45, 5 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 ^talk? 10:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

   Support per nom and answers to the questions. Gidonb 11:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

9. Support as per all the above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
10. 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)

11. Terence 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Support; seen him around, like user's attitude. Tizio 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
13. He seems reliable. Support. James, La gloria è a dio 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
14. 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)
15. Support as candidate seems to be a very responsible and trustworthy editor. I see no reason to not twiddle the bit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

    Support Not a big deal, and seems like a fine canidate unlikely to abuse the tools. - Denny 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
17. SupportI beleive this will be beneficial for the WikiReform Group's Cause Sethdoe92 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
18. Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
19. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. No reason to oppose. -Mschel 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Nice work with the featured articles. User seems good for adminship. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
22. Support looks like a good faith editor Anynobody 06:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - excellent editor. One of the easiest and surest votes I have ever cast.--Looper5920 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
25. 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)
26. Support - no reasons to oppose. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

27. Support - good editor with plenty of experience. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
28. 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)
29. Support. Take that mop. Abeg92contribs 13:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Looks good to me. James086^{Talk | Email} 15:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - We need admins with good FA understanding. In addition, Cla68 is trustworthy. -- Jreferee 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Garion96 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
33. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-02 11:12Z
34. 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)
35. Support --A. B. ^(talk) 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
36. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
37. Support, sure why not.--Wizardman 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. Great, great editor.--Yannismarou 13:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
39. Support, of course; absolutely amazing editor in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. A pleasure to work with. If we learn from our mistakes, he must have made a lot of them...somewhere :-) Grant | Talk 13:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - Highly qualified editor/article creator/improver, and Cla68 is right about the backlog and potential increase in strain of the backlog in the future. Smee 14:58, 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. [2] [3] 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 Wikipedia 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. [4] Cla later posted a comment based on WordBomb's conspiracy theories on Wikipedia 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, [5] but I had to warn him again a few days later not to restore WordBomb's posts that sought to "out" Mantan; [6] the original post was oversighted so I can't supply the diff of Cla restoring it. Can Cla explain his actions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia's most notorious sockpuppets. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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. [7] 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 Wikipedia Review; Cla doesn't deny posting it. [8] 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 10:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   Cla68 restoring a vandalism warning from a Wordbomb IP, which Mantanmoreland had removed. [9] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   Out of curiosity: how is one supposed to determine that some arbitrary IP belongs to a banned editor, particularly given a lack of background in the history of said banned editor? Kirill Lokshin 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   Cla68 had obviously done a lot of off-wiki research into the situation. He knew about WordBomb's attack site. He was able to refer to WordBomb's posts from Wikipedia Review. Common sense would therefore tell him that, if an anon IP added a vandalism alert to the page of an established editor who is being stalked, the anon might be the stalker. Even without that background, it shows poor judgment to restore an anon's vandalism alert, when that was the anon's sole edit, the person being warned was an established user, and the user had already removed the warning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   I can't seem to find any evidence of anything relating to this matter being oversighted; are you quite sure that something was? Kirill Lokshin 13:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   I know that a lot of WordBomb's posts were oversighted, and Cla68 says above that most of the Gary Weiss conflict edits were permanently deleted, but I don't have information about any specific posts that were. Perhaps Cla68 can explain what he meant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   I suspect that this is in reference to Jimbo's "courtesy delete" of the AFD nom (which, as far as I can tell, wasn't related to any egregious BLP issues); the distinction between deletion and oversight is not one that would be obvious to a non-admin. Kirill Lokshin 13:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   Jimbo's deletion of the AfD was related to BLP issues and followed a complaint. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Sorry, must Oppose. I need an explanation for your poor judgment related to linking to attack sites and supporting banned users over Wikipedia admins in good standing. I spent too many hours cleaning up the mess WordBomb and his socks made on Wikipedia to ignore your involvement with that situation. FloNight 11:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per SlimVirgin and FloNight, at least until concerns are addressed. I don't know who WordBomb is, so can neither condone nor condemn Cla68's support for him. But possibly the most important thing in considering a candidate's suitability is the question of whether or not he/she can be trusted to act appropriately and sensitively in the case of trolls posting personal information, or posting links to sites that give personal information. I'd like to think that someone I voted to give admin tools to would be the kind of person who would immediately delete stalking diffs from page histories, not the kind who would add them. It seems that this RfA will pass anyway, unless a bureaucrat extends the closing date. If the closing date is extended, and the candidate offers a reasonable explanation, I'd be prepared to change my position. ElinorD (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose for now. Per concerns raised above and below. gidonb 12:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Seems to support a vicious and notorious anti-Wikipedia troll, and wanted desperately to delete an article on an investigative journalist who exposed an associate, while linking to an attack site. I can't see WP benefitting from having someone like that gaining admin powers. Crum375 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   I am quoting from the revision that Cla68 nominated for deletion:

   Weiss's "Mob on Wall Street" and other Business Week stories were praised by then-FBI Director Louis Freeh, in a letter published by Business Week in December 2000.[10] Freeh said "Gary Weiss has done our nation an invaluable service by reporting the manipulation of the stock market by elements of organized crime. By outlining specific stocks and stock brokerage firms that were controlled by organized crime, he opened the door for FBI investigations in Florida and in New York, and for that we owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude."

   Now Cla68 claimed that his motivation was 'COI edits' to the article by some people, but that quote has not been disputed, and to me nominating an article for deletion, with such a reference in it, indicates either extremely poor judgment, or some ulterior motive. Crum375 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Strong Oppose. Struck above support, changing to strong opposition. We do not support or endorse any activities that include stalking and harassment of editors. Anyone who also is willing to give an inch to cyber stalking-type activities can't be trusted with the tools in any fashion or level. - Denny ^(talk) 13:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Supporting harassment and attack sites cannot be justified. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 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^(t) 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 Wikipedia, 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)