Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clawson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Edit count
Go back to see caveats or to check another user.
User:Clawson
run at Thu Mar 15 05:09:30 2007 GMT
Category talk: 4
Category: 7
Image: 3
Mainspace 4201
Talk: 837
Template talk: 3
Template: 25
User talk: 1370
User: 65
Wikipedia talk: 61
Wikipedia: 252
avg edits per article 2.98
earliest 15:55, 5 September 2004
number of unique pages 2295
total 6828
2004/9 41
2004/10 8
2004/11 5
2004/12 50
2005/1 103
2005/2 28
2005/3 90
2005/4 269
2005/5 49
2005/6 332
2005/7 454
2005/8 291
2005/9 1014
2005/10 389
2005/11 380
2005/12 5
2006/1 8
2006/2 53
2006/3 50
2006/4 42
2006/5 62
2006/6 67
2006/7 98
2006/8 419
2006/9 332
2006/10 169
2006/11 306
2006/12 461
2007/1 407
2007/2 544
2007/3 302
Mainspace
186 Comair Flight 5191
75 LZ 129 Hindenburg
72 Battle of New Orleans
67 Howard Hughes
55 RMS Titanic
47 American Revolutionary War
41 Cannabis (drug)
39 IPod nano
37 Kalamazoo, Michigan
37 Adidas
36 Pilot certification in the United States
36 Fixed-wing aircraft
34 Malcolm X
34 George W. Bush
31 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster
Talk:
157 Comair Flight 5191
23 List of Irish-Americans and Americans of Irish descent
19 George W. Bush
15 Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
14 Atheism
14 LZ 129 Hindenburg
13 Fixed-wing aircraft
13 Michael Jackson
13 Dime (United States coin)
13 IPod nano
13 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
12 Battle of New Orleans
12 DirecTV
10 Ray Nagin
10 Malcolm X
Category talk:
2 Entheogens
Category:
3 Transport in Germany
2 Temperance organizations
Image:
2 Star wars episode three poster2.jpg
Template:
4 Latest stable release/Camino
2 Current usaf box
2 Star Wars character
2 Lamborghini
Template talk:
3 US currency and coinage
User:
11 Clawson
8 Fvw/TalkArchive/12
7 Copperchair/Archive1
6 Clawson/sig
6 Fvw/TalkArchive/11
5 172.209.90.27
3 Tom McKean
2 Clawson/monobook.js
2 Clawson/Archives/Talk 1
User talk:
64 Copperchair
39 Clawson
17 64.109.253.204
16 FT in Leeds
14 24.146.19.164
14 70.23.104.48
12 Jtkiefer
12 The Wookieepedian
12 Mackensen
12 203.112.19.195
12 RickK
8 64.132.161.7
7 Lapsed Pacifist
6 71.13.130.240
6 70.150.2.9
Wikipedia:
59 Requests for investigation
40 Articles requested for more than a year
26 Articles requested for more than two years
13 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
6 Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9
6 Requests for comment/Copperchair
5 Requests for comment/Lapsed Pacifist
5 Requested moves
4 Articles for deletion/Insert Disc Two
4 Peer review/Comair Flight 191
3 Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim
3 Deletion review/Log/2007 January 16
3 Articles for deletion/Chewbacca defense
3 Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
3 Articles for deletion/Safety siping
Wikipedia talk:
11 Manual of Style
10 WikiProject Aircraft
8 Manual of Style (trademarks)
6 WikiProject Airports
5 WikiProject Numismatics
3 Articles requested for more than a year
3 Requests for comment/Copperchair
2 WikiProject Military history
2 Requests for investigation/archive
2 WikiProject Films
2 Articles requested for more than two years
2 Conflict of interest
2 Requests for mediation/Dispute over style in Star Wars articles
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]
[edit] Chris Lawson not ready for Admin.
Sorry, to all for not doing it like this in the beginning. Look at his source/quote for making the Red Baron jewish. I think it smacks of an agenda. Read the 2 discussion threads on the Jewish issue linked at the bottom. He never even confronts the fact that his "source's"quote doesn't even state that the red Baron was jewish (it could mean he was slavic) yet alone the 50 year old book isn't even about the Red Baron, yet alone no jewish relatives name, nor geneology, etc. His logic, which he reiterates constantly, is you have to disprove something to get it removed, not that you have to really prove something in the first place to get it added. Reversed logic! I think that's just plain wrong, bad logic. He wants multiple sources saying that the Red Barren wasn't jewish, but he doesn't need even one quote from one source saying he was definitively Jewish to add it????? At least get a quote saying he was jewish directly, if not the actual jewish ancestor's name (he was from a noble family, many of the Red Baron's ancestors are listed there, none are jewish) yet alone a good source for something like that such as a biographey, yet alone multiple sources. It's just bad scholarship. Also, he calls people who disagree with him anti-semities and quacks with no justification just like his edition. See the Diffs provided on the project page for proof of that. JohnHistory 09:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manfred_von_Richthofen
The major problem with this Rfa now is not what the candidate has done, but can it really be fair after quite a severe case of canvassing. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. These diffs are by no means all of them, theres about 30 in total trying to change support voters votes, but then theres also all the people who view the associated talk pages who may also form an opinion, lets say 10 people view it from each talk page, that means theres the potential for 300 people to form a view and go and oppose this Rfa. I don't really think this is fair on the candidate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 09:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked with a ? mark if you wanted to support him. I do not possess mind control abilities. I gave the links to let you decide. Plain and simple. The problem with Rfa has to be what he has done! There's no other way. Listen, I didn't know about "canvassing" to me it was just trying to give the people who already voted before this incident a heads up, that's all. I had the same thing to say to all of you. are you trying to say that more people will look at what I mentioned, so it's a bad thing? Why is it bad, to have people making an important vote, be well-informed? [I reall ythink what Chris Lawson is doing is really bad thing, I wanted to bring attention to it. Again, I didn't know about "canvassing", to me it was just letting you people know something I feel strongly about. JohnHistory 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
- The problem is that its against guidlines and people judge candidates on what they've seen of them in the past, research that they've done, or other views on the Rfa page. Canvassing opens up the massive potential for uninformed voters to go and oppose with little consideration of other things the candidate has done. It also leads people to change their votes, due to them feeling that they are being hounded to do so. I have no opinion of the concerns you have raised on peoples talk pages, but as I said previously - what has already happened is not fair on the candidate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are being too extreme. People already have looked at his stuff before they vote, right. So this is just one more thing to look at. It's important. Are you trying to say that people shouldn't know about this??? I didn't know about "canvassing", to me it was just letting you people know something that has happened since you voted. Isn't "Fair" in this instance, really keeping wikipedia that way by not giving power to people who would abuse it as I displayed. JohnHistory 10:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
I only "canvassed" people who already voted in support of him before this incident, other then one other registered person who debated him on the same issue I have with him before me. I assumed she didn't know he was applying for this. Other then that, you all are people who have already voted. I haven't messaged anyone else. So maybe you didn't understand that?? There shouldn't be any "uninformed" people, in terms of my messaging, unless uninformed people already voted in support of him, which would be just as bad as the opposite, right? JohnHistory 10:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
- You see, theres the issue straight away - I haven't voted yet, but I saw it after seeing it on numerous peoples talk pages, so regardless of whether people have supported or not - other people are going to see it and get a biased view before doing their reseach. I'm not saying you intentially did this against guidlines (because I'm sure you haven't), but it seams that you didn't understand this before you left those messages - thats why I'm saying this Rfa is now biased - as nobody can turn the clock back Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Biased towards what? Reading a few more of his posts! What is so bad about that? This is what I wrote to the people who had already voted: Are you sure you want to support this guy? Look at his source/quote for making the Red Baron jewish. read the discussion page on it. See the opposers views on his request page. look at the diffs. It scares me. JohnHistory 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manfred_von_Richthofen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Clawson
I don't think it is hounding or intimidating. No one is going to do anything they don't want to , I'm not that powerful . JohnHistory 10:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Sorry, I'm not buying that, thats clearly putting a negative view into the eyes of the voter "See the opposers views on his request page. look at the diffs. It scares me" - that puts bias in my mind already - without going to the Rfa page to look at the diffs (and most probably after looking at your message, not the support statements or checking other contribs). Anyway, I've said my piece on this, so guess I'll leave it to the jury Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't you have to assume some level of maturity for those voting in the first place. Let them read it, and whatever else too. The more info the better, right? These people would have missed this otherwise. Are you not able to look at his work now? I think you can do it. If the above bias you, i'ts your own bias based off your own opinion from some real data I provided, it's not me. You have to read it yourself and make your own mind up. JohnHistory 10:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
- He didn't "make the Red Baron jewish", check the history. One Night In Hackney303 10:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If he didn't add it, he sure has fought tooth in nail with multiple people to keep it despite the source's quote not even stating what it is cited to support. It doesn't even say he was jewish, yet alone back it up with anything. Non-aryan, if we are to believe this 50 year old book that is not even on the Red Baron, could be slavic or many things other then jewish. Not to mention the source is wrong that he would have been killed by the NAZI's as it would have been well in the past, (way under the 1/2 jewish final solution criteria) and he was a German hero. I bought the book and it's in the mail. JohnHistory 10:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
Also, Chris Lawson has contacted people "cherry picking" things for them to see to have their vote changed. (look at #2 that's crossed out under Oppose) Couldn't that be construed as hounding/intimidation or biasing people fo real? JohnHistory 10:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
