Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68

Cla68

Voice your opinion (40/29/8); 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. I could have handled the Gary Weiss situation better when I took-on the issue with the article and I've learned from the experience. Cla68 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

6. The site that you linked to in the AfD was clearly an attack site, and a controversial one, so controversial it's been mentioned by the New York Times, as I recall. Can you say why you felt it was acceptable to link to a site that was attempting to "out" your fellow editors? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A: That's your opinion that it was an attack site. I didn't consider it to be so, because most of its content (last time I checked which wasn't recently) doesn't relate directly to Wikipedia, but to the Internet as a whole. Nevertheless, it was pointed out to me that I wasn't supposed to link to outside sites in certain situations on Wikipedia, although the guideline are less clear in content or POV disputes. But, I didn't and haven't linked to that site again. Cla68 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you talking about the website you linked to in your Gary Weiss AfD nomination, which was removed by an administrator? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my answer? For the sake of openness, I'm trying to name the site, but without linking to it. Cla68 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to deny that this site contains vicious attacks on myself, SlimVirgin and other Wiki editors? This is not a large site, and was being started up at the time you were using it as a source of information. Are you claiming that you didn't "see" these attacks and purported personal information?--Mantanmoreland 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Context doesn't matter. We don't link to sites that are attack sites. We don't link to sites that attack or try to "out" Wikipedians. Sites that try to "out" Wikipedians are attack sites. - Denny ^(talk) 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I bothered to ask because there was only one that I know of, and it was clearly an attack site. It tried to out some Wikipedians, and it made serious personal attacks on named individuals, possibly actionable libels. To refer to it during an AfD, and to base a deletion nomination on the nonsense it contained, is bad enough; to defend the addition of it now is disturbing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending having used it. As I said above, I haven't linked to that site since then. My answer to #5 is why I got involved in this matter in the first place. An external website identified an article on Wikipedia that was clearly POV. I tried to make that article neutral. After a large dispute, it's now neutral. Cla68 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You have already today posted that URL 3 times at least, even after being reverted. This is a link to a site that attacks or attempts to out your fellow editors. You were warned not to do so. There is no practical difference between a link with http:// in front of it or not. Anybody reading this can easily paste it into their browser's URL window and hit 'Enter'. Please stop this unacceptable behavior. Crum375 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe he posted it 4 times, but one was deleted? I think he violated 3rr on his own RfA. - Denny ^(talk) 19:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight, it seems that this sort of situation indicates certain limitations of the MONGO ruling; it'd be better, in the long run, if the community could develop a broader and more thorough policy on how to deal with attack sites and links to/mentions of them, rather than relying only on the ArbCom decision in an particular case. Kirill Lokshin 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very wise comment.--Yannismarou 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

7. Hi Cla68. There are many opinions in this RfA drawn from deleted posts and I cannot make heads or tails of it without the diffs. Here are a few related questions that might help clarify things without the diffs. When (e.g, what date) did you first learn that you should not link to that site? Although you have not linked to that site since that time, did you include any part of the URL for that site in this RfA in your attempts to name the site? If yes, could others find that site by using what you posted in this RfA? Thanks. -- Jreferee 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Cla68's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• In the interests of fair disclosure (admins and prospective ones should have nothing to hide) can someone please name what exactly this attack site was? No link is needed, just the name. Non-admins can't see the deleted AfD to judge the magnitude of this fully. - Denny ^(talk) 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Denny, I'll e-mail it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested, too. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As would I, thanks. Abeg92contribs 18:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Struck my request. We don't need to advertise hate/attack sites and their supporters. - Denny ^(talk) 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, since the nature of the website was subject to debate here, I tried to name it (without linking to it). I've been told that the website can't be named here or anywhere. I don't agree with this, since my use of that website has been expressed as an object of concern, interested parties should be able to look at it to decide for themselves. Otherwise, all we have is certain admins telling everyone, "It's an attack site. Don't look at it, but take my word for it." Cla68 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to respect the ironclad prohibition against posting attack sites, you could have offered to email the name of the site to interested editors. Instead you violated that policy, and I see that you were just warned by an administrator to stop.[2]--Mantanmoreland 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody e-mail me this site. I want to see it, but since it has not been allowed here, I only listen to it without knowing anything about its content. Thanks!--Yannismarou 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

---

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)

   Support per strong answers to the questions. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)(changing to abstention, pending further info on concerns raised by the opposition)

7. 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)

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

10. Terence 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Support; seen him around, like user's attitude. Tizio 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
12. He seems reliable. Support. James, La gloria è a dio 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
13. 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)
14. 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)

    As an addendum, I have reviewed the information presented in the Oppose section, and while I think Cla68 needs to work a bit on how he handles issues such as that, I do not think he will abuse the tools. I think Cla68 can be trusted with them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:05, 6 April 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)

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

    Support - good editor with plenty of experience. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

26. 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)
27. Support. Take that mop. Abeg92contribs 13:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Support Looks good to me. James086^{Talk | Email} 15:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC) changed to neutral. James086^{Talk | Email} 02:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Support - We need admins with good FA understanding. In addition, Cla68 is trustworthy. -- Jreferee 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (changed to Neutral Jreferee 00:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

    Support Garion96 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

28. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-02 11:12Z
29. 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) I think you did not handle the Weiss situation well. That point has been adundantly made below, so I will continue with my moral support in light of the many fine contributions you have made to this project. I also have to say that I find myself disheartened by the level of confrontation that has entered into this discussion.--Kubigula (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
30. Support --A. B. ^(talk) 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
31. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
32. Support, sure why not.--Wizardman 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Great, great editor.--Yannismarou 13:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
34. Support, of course; absolutely amazing editor in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
35. 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)
36. 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).
37. Support Per criteria set out on my user page. Good to see an article writer here. Edivorce 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. Everyking 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
39. Support I can see where the concern is coming from regarding his candidacy but he has answered the questions here and fielded the criticism very effectively. He has also made superb contributions. Would make a great Admin. --QuiTacetConsentiret 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
40. Support — MichaelLinnear 00:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. One of the few editors, I would describe as great. Kyriakos 06:23, 6 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. [3] [4] 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. [5] 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, [6] but I had to warn him again a few days later not to restore WordBomb's posts that sought to "out" Mantan; [7] 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. [8] 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. [9] 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)

By the way, I don't live in the United States. I live in Japan. Cla68 09:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Cla68 restoring a vandalism warning from a Wordbomb IP, which Mantanmoreland had removed. [10] 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)

   I don't know who "WordBomb" is. I got involved with the Gary Weiss article because it wasn't neutral and was noted for that outside of the project. After my involvement, the article is now more neutral. Cla68 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   Precisely. The article was "noted for that outside the project" in only one venue a bizarre, paranoid attack site that stalked myself and other Wikipedia editors and administrators. It was subsequently revealed that this website was a run by an official of a company whose CEO detests Wikipedia, and recently created a competing wiki. Even though you did not know that, your taking marching orders from this website, and giving its venomous attacks any credence, are very much relevant to this discussion. --Mantanmoreland 18:37, 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.[11] 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)
8. Oppose for now It may be that opposing this editor is unfair to the individual, I'm unsure. But when I consider the project rather than the individual, my conclusion is "not worth the risk".--Doc^g 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose for now, as per Flonight and Doc. Seems like a good editor as it pertains to writing articles, but at this time and given the controversy I cannot support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Cla has done a lot of great things for Wikipedia, and should be commended. But assisting in the "outing" of Wikipedia editors can't be tolerated, and Cla's expressed attitude to this above show a lack of concern that does not make me confident he can be trusted with admin tools. A dangerous minority seeks to "punish" Wikipedians who express views they don't agree with, by revealing their personal information and exposing them to harassment. (This seems to be Wikipedia Review's primary use.) That he assisted in this more than once is extremely troubling. That he doesn't see any need to apologize is more than enough to get me to oppose his nomination. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, I did apologize to both of the editors involved during a later discussion on the Admin Incidents noticeboard for implying that they were the same person and retracted my implied accusation. Cla68 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Actually you did not, and were reproached for that at the time.[12]--Mantanmoreland 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose. per Quadell and Flonight. Doesn't seem that these issues have been adequately addressed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose - concerns are weighty if a bit complicated, but they lead me to the conclusion that we'd likely lose much of the impact of a very good editor by trying to gain an iffy admin. I just don't think adminship should be the reward for good editing. --Leifern 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose per concerns raised above. There are serious questions that have not been addressed. Guettarda 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose. I was surprised and dismayed to learn about this RfA, in light of Cla68's history of pushing the agenda of the notorious troll and stalker WordBomb. His description of a notorious smear site operated by WordBomb, one that has received attention in the New York Times and elsewhere as the epitome of post-Enron corporate sleaze, as "not an 'attack' site, but a blog that highlights abuse anywhere on then net, wherever that may be," boggles the mind. His comments concerning the Gary Weiss article, sloughing over his abysmal behavior there, are equally disingenuous. He created a bad faith deletion nomination that was, in effect, an attack page, and had to be deleted by Jimbo. In addition to his behavior in Gary Weiss and the other factors cited previously, I would like to draw editors' attention to Cla68's bizarre and inappropriate intervention in two AN/Is last December, again pushing the WordBomb agenda. See his totally gratuitous reference to a request for a checkuser in [13]a and here [14], The Checkuser request to which he refers was by one of WordBomb's gazillion sockpuppets, and was totally bogus. As can be seen from Cla68's comments in his exchange with SlimVirgin and myself, he was acting as a classic troll. He was again acting on behalf of WordBomb, who has since received significant off-Wiki publicity as a corporate official who stalks enemies of his boss, who runs an Internet company. Cla68 showed, at the very least, extremely poor judgment. Through poor judgment or worse, Cla68 served as the surrogate of a person who used Wikipedia to carry out a corporate smear campaign. Such a person should not be an administrator.--Mantanmoreland 17:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Per concerns raised about judgment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose per SlimVirgin's concerns.--Urthogie 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Xiner (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Especially the attacksite. Many of the attacks on there were already there when the link was added to the AFD. Garion96 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose A fine article writer for sure, but SlimVirgin's vote tells me this candidate is highly unqualified for an admin role at this time. --Blutacker 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    For the record: This is the user's sixth edit, and his second outside Daniel Brandt. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    I knew someone would say that. I might not edit a lot, but its up to the bureaucrat how much my vote is worth, not you. I normally wouldn't vote on an RfA, but I'm not just going to sit and watch it pass without letting my feelings be known. And no, I haven't already voted on another account, so I think my vote can stay. --Blutacker 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

20. Oppose per concerns raised by SlimVirgin and FloNight. – Riana ^ऋ 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
21. Strong oppose While there seems to be broad agreement that Cla68 is a productive contributor, restoring oversighted/libelous diffs and aiding banned users engaged in stalking or real world harassment is completely unacceptable. Such should be grounds for immediate desysoping in any event, and more than enough to oppose this RfA.Proabivouac 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose per concerns of SlimVirgin and FloNight. I don't understand why Cla68 nominated the Gary Weiss article for deletion. He should have backed off when the Gary Weiss debate started becoming so destructive. (Cleaning up one single article is not the end of the world). I question his good judgment during these events. EdJohnston 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
23. I normally don't oppose RfAs, but there are too many concerns for this one. Sorry, Khoikhoi 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose I've been following this for a while, and I have not gotten enough of a sense from Cla68 that he sees that using the site he used, in any fashion, was wrong. We must never link to sites that harrass wikipedia editors, full stop. IronDuke 23:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose per concerns raised by SlimVirgin and FloNight and numerous other WP editors in good standing. I think Proabivouac hits the nail on the head. <<-armon->> 23:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose per concerns raised above. It's just too risky. John Reaves (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Being an admin is a delicate balance between taking bold action without being reckless. The line between the two is often fine. Good communication can make actions that would otherwise be reckless seem merely bold, and poor communication can make bold actions seems reckless. I'm not comfortable with Cla68's ability to distinguish between the two. I encourage him to spend more time working as an editor, rather than seeking the mop. Nandesuka 02:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose per Slimvirgin and Mantanmoreland. That's a real deal-breaker. Grandmasterka 02:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose Many concerns raised here and I cannot support based on other reasonable objections.--MONGO 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
30. This casts significant doubt. >Radiant< 08:17, 6 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)

   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)

2. Neutral As per comments above. Booksworm Talk to me! 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral as per comments above. RFerreira 07:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
4. 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)

   Neutral for now, changed from support. Would like an answer to question 6. Garion96 (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

5. The site is an attack site and should never have been mentioned, by URL, name or suggestion. However, I am convinced Cla68 acted in good faith and based on that assumption I won't go so far as to oppose. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral Changed from support. The concerns raised above need to be addressed but I can't opposed as there are various stated concerns without diffs to review. This RfA is scheduled to end 12:18, 6 April 2007 and the opposition began on 5 April. Per WJBscribe, it may be important to extend the end time of this RfA in light of the 5 April concerns... -- Jreferee 00:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral, currently leaning towards oppose. Lots of reasons to support, not every editor can pump out 11 FAs. However, this outing website issue concerns me. Perhaps he's learned a lesson, but it worries me that he would do that without extra powers. Good answers to the questions, though. Hornandsoccer^Talk 02:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral in light of the new opposition. I agree with Kncyu38 that it was probably good faith so I'm not going to oppose. James086^{Talk | Email} 02:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)