Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rklawton


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Rklawton
 Final (49/6/2); Ended 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

- It's my pleasure to nominate Rklawton for adminship. He began editing on January 4th, 2006. I personally welcomed him and helped him on his way. Since then he has made over 15,000 16,000 edits, and uploaded over 140 photos. He is currently active "sacking vandals" as he calls it, along with tagging articles and images for deletion as you can see here User:Rklawton/Tag. He is active on AFD and AIV. He has always been evenhanded and given everyone a fair chance. I think he is an excellent editor and will use the janitorial tools provided by adminship to the utmost. Ravedave 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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 have been working with WP:CSD and WP:AFD for many months. Recently I've started reviewing images in the album covers category and related article pages (over 1,000 images to date).  I've found many orphaned images and many more instances where these images have been used inappropriately.  I've logged much of this work here.  I haven't a clue why I take satisfaction in these efforts, but I do.  Sysop privileges will allow me to complete these tasks without piling them onto another admin's plate.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am most pleased with my original photographic contributions. When vandals start to get me down, I find digging through my archives an excellent remedy.  I have received requests from publishers to reprint my images, and I'm always thrilled to stumble across an image someone else thought worthy.


 * 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: Yes. Early on I found conflicts very stressful and responded accordingly.  With increasing familiarity with policies and guidelines, I've been able to more effectively communicate with fellow editors.  Most significantly, however, I've learned to trust Wikipedians.  That is, if I'm really sure of myself and I express myself clearly, then obviously other editors will agree, and it's only a matter of time before consensus swings my way.  Trusting Wikipedia also means eating crow when that doesn't happen.  The "Unwatch" feature can be a great stress reliever, too.

Optional Question(s) from  Kuru talk
 * 4. What is your current position on the domain of the G1 criteria for speedy deletions? How would you assess an article that was borderline G11?
 * A: G1 - Patent nonsense:  G1 serves a useful purpose, but editors (myself included) often use it in cases of WP:SNOW rather than define the actual problem.  I found myself using G1 less frequently as my familiarity with WP:CSD grew.  Admins familiar with the CSD process shouldn't have difficulty sorting out improperly tagged articles, and they can help educate novice editors as needed.  More significantly, Wikipedia might benefit from an interface enhancement that would allow editors to nominate recently created articles for deletion using a point-and-click interface and without having to read the CSD project page.


 * A: G11 - Blatant advertising:  I think speedy deletion should only be used in obvious and not borderline cases.  When evaluating a G11 candidate, I would prefer to either remove the offending material myself or evaluate the article under G12 (copyright violations), A7 (notability), or A1 (empty).  If the article can't be deleted under any of these three, then the offending text may represent a difference of opinion.  If so, it can be tagged for advertising and resolved editorially.


 * General comments


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


 * I have been primarily active here at Wikipedia. However, I also have a few thousand edits in Wiktionary, Commons, and in Wikipedias spanning over 40 other languages all under the user name Rklawton.  While I'm not fluent in anything but English, I am fortunate that a picture is worth a thousand words in any language.  I won't clutter your talk pages with thank-you messages, so thank you in advance for taking the time to consider my RfA.  While the tally for this RfA will be interesting, your comments will have by far the greatest impact on my work, and so thank you again for your comments and suggestions.
 * I'm unclear about exactly what objection Zleitzen has to Rklawton. The discourse he posted is civil, as far as I can tell.  Civil disagreement is not against any Wikipedia policy or guideline.  It doesn't make much difference, since it seems Rklawton will pass the vote easily, but I just wanted to voice my confusion as to Zleitzen's objection.K. Scott Bailey 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish to point out that Zleitzen's comments refer to a matter occurring 3,600 edits ago. Xoloz's objections concern a matter occurring 9,100 edits ago.  Rklawton 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you would have handled the incidents differently? If so, how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cool Hand Luke (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes to both.
 * Zoloz's case: had I to do it over again, I would have cited WP:SNOW in the AfD because that's shorthand for what I was trying to communicate and taken no further action.  I didn't know about SNOW at the time, and my experience since June has shown me that while one admin may want to see an AfD go all five days, there are many others who would not.
 * Zleitzen's case: this has two main components.  The first was the creation of a new category.  I assumed the category would be discussed on its talk page and renamed if desired.  I didn't expect to see the opening discussion take place on a CfD instead.  However, Zleitzen (below) is correct.  I don't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia's categorization efforts.  Since this incident, I have refrained from creating any categories pending further effort on my part to learn more about the process.  The second component, a tangent to the category I created, regarded a disagreement over whether or not Castro had been diagnosed as terminally ill.  I thought then that "western intelligence sources" constituted a more reliable source than state run Cuban media.  I still do.  However, I found myself working against my own definition of the category I had just created – that a terminal condition be verifiable - in order to make a point about Cuban media, and that was just dumb on my part.  What would I do differently regarding this point?  I could promise not to make any more dumb mistakes (if only).  The best I can muster with sincerity is a general assurance that I tend not to make the same mistake twice (800+ skydives notwithstanding). - Rklawton 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that most of the people in the opposition to Rklawton have little basis in anything other than very civil disagreements they had with him. If we disallowed every admin who had had some kind of civil disagreement with another Wikipedian, we would have no admins.  Keep that in mind when you post opposition messages such as the ones below.K. Scott Bailey 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the user's 16k edits, I would be more surprised if there weren't any disagreements. User seems to have expressed his opinion in a reasonable, non-confrontational way.  I'm satisfied with his response and have changed to support. - Meersan 17:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support Oppose
 * 1) IvoShandor, 6 March 2007 (UTC): I would say Strongly Support. Rklawton has been a pleasure to have around the wiki. His photographic contributions invaluable. Hey is an excellent dispute settler and manages a cool head when even the seemingly coolest Wikiholics lose their minds, I am, of course, talking about myself. Lawton's sufficient knowledge of WP policy has also contributed to his ability to settle disputes with otherwise annoying spammers and the like in a civil fashion. In addition he uses that knowledge not just to speak in others stead but to show other users what they need to know to explain policy in a rational manner.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) K. Scott Bailey 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Count me also as a Strongly Support. In my brief dealings with him, have found Rklawton to be a fine editor--very clear-headed and rational--and I feel he would make a superb admin.K. Scott Bailey 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Yup a really Good Choice..-- Cometstyles 17:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Absolutely.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Sure. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Rklawton had shown a real dedication to the project, there is no question about his trustworthiness. Rje 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep on Ramblin' support The Rambling Man 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Geez, I thought I was going to get to nominate you. alphachimp  18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Too slow! You can add a co-nominatorship above if you like. :) -Ravedave 18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, that's alright. Yours is just fine :) alphachimp  18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support looks like an excellent candidate. Particularly liked the answer to Q3, though never heard of "eating crow"! --Dweller 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support. Xoloz makes a good point, you're argumentative. But that's a good thing in moderation. I looked over the your talkpage and think that for the amount of work you do you have had an acceptably low amount of controversy. Mind the deletion and copyright policies, and you should be fine. - NYC JD (make a motion) 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Very Strong Support. An experienced photographer with excellent knowledge :-)--NAHID 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Michael 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Dedicated to the project, unlikely to abuse admin tools. I read through the CfD links Zleitzen mentioned; I believe civility was maintained throughout. --Fang Aili talk 21:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Impressive contributions, cool demeanor. Sandstein 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--Heywool 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This was Heywool's 4th edit to Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz(talk) 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support - Looks OK, but Xoloz's comments worry me a bit. While I hate process wonkery, you need to be clear about CSD reasons as its such a rapid process and can leave new users confused and frustrated. Linking to the right CSD policy is very helpful. Voice -of-  All  01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, Xoloz's issue, as he noted, seems to be quite some time ago. Mr. Lawton seems to have much more experience at this point with minimal conflicts. I must be missing something in Zleitzen's oppose - that looked like fairly civil discourse.  A ton of vandal mopping and a regular at AIV, along with significant encyclopedia building to balance it.   Kuru  talk  02:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Kuru.-- danntm T C 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support -- "Support" because he's been a steady, civil contributor to Wikipedia and "strong" because of the kindness and encouragement I've seen him give in the to newcomers discouraged by their articles' speedy deletions. --A. B. (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was surprised by Zleitzen's oppose comments below, so I read the diffs and the CfD discussion. While I don't totally agree with Rklawton, I thought he had a reasonable position which he asserted civilly in the talk page discussion with Zleitzen. As for the CfD, the majority consensus was "delete", but it was not unanimous. Several other editors wanted to keep the category but just rename it. I wouldn't have thought we needed a category for dying people but Rklawton did offer some interesting reasons (besides ghoulishness) why certain niches of readers could use such a category and I probably would have recommended keeping the category (but renaming it). (As for Castro, I agree with Zleitzen -- people have been wishing him a terminal condition for 50 years and he's still around.) --A. B. (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: A good user and very active in XfDs and AIV. --Meno25 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: Upon review of your talk pages and contributions, I feel you would have adequate use for the administrative tools. --Ozgod 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - An as Talk? 08:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Very strong support, I have had some conversations with this user and he impressed me by his profound knowledge, experience and kindness. He deserves to use the sysop. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support Rklawton does great work at WP:AFD, a very reasoned user who has done tremendous work on the wiki (I actually offered a nomination for adminship a few weeks ago). Regarding civility, he has been aware of this issue for some time and has made a very active step to stop this which can only be commended Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support per above. Yuser31415 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per above. Jonathunder 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - I have seen his work and approve accordingly. -- zzuuzz(talk) 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Weak Support Good user, but some big concerns raised. However, the concerns do not warrant opposition. Captain  panda   In   vino   veritas  03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - I'm not holding previous disagreements noted below or 800+ skydives against him. --Dual Freq 04:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Confident he'll use the tools wisely. Seems to have learned from previous situations mentioned by opposers. Be a swabber and handy with a mop.  Pig mandialogue 06:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Per answers to questions on speedy deletions. Seivad 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Per response to items raised by User:Xoloz and User:Zleitzen. Occasional disagreements between editors are inevitable for someone who's so active. Key is that the user consistently handles himself in a low-drama, professional way and is willing to listen and learn. Impressive contributions; promotion will benefit WP. - Meersan 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Reasonable answers to concerns which kept me neutral. -- Renesis (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support John254 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) support --dario vet (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support User:ronbo76 - Rklawton's edits are trusted ones in my journeys across Wikipedia; does great work for the WikiProject Illinois; and, been kind to me on WikiCommons. Ronbo76 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Rklawton will make an effective admin. I have interacted with him a number of times and have generally been impressed with his work. The one area he should be careful of is knowing when a disagreement isn't worth continuing. Sometimes its better to make your case and walk away rather than continue a discussion when it becomes obvious you are not going to change the other party's mind. If you can curb the tendency to always want the last word, you'll be a better admin. Good luck, Gwernol 20:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Terence Ong 14:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - I've disagreed with him before myself, but he strikes me as someone with good judgement who wouldn't abuse his admin tools in disputes. Savidan 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support per Meersan now. feydey 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support per the above; a good well-rounded person, it appears. - Denny 09:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) support because of many beautiful images uploaded and hard work to clear away vandalisms he will be a good administrator yuckfoo 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Incident raised by Xoloz was nearly 9 months ago. I think its fair to say Rklawton has learned from the experience (see general comments). Recent contribs show no problems. WjBscribe 15:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support With his solid contributions and good answers, I feel comfortable handing Rklawton the big, shiny buttons... -- Scientizzle 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Patstuarttalk·edits 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, let's just give him the tools.-- Wizardman 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm an hour and a half late, but as the crats haven't closed this yet, I'll just sneak in another support :) – riana_dzasta 16:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Back in June, editor misunderstood deletion criteria, and engaged in a brusque discussion with me over why "hoaxes" are not speedy deleted . I certainly hope he has gotten a firmer grasp of deletion policy since then; but that isn't the reason for my oppose here.  Mr. Lawton demeanor is more my concern, especially his attempt at rules-lawyering.  I realize this was some time ago; and so, I'm open to persuasion.  Generally, however, editors who become so irritated over simple deletion questions do not make good admins. Xoloz 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose My only interaction with Rklawton makes me question this editor's judgement. Rklawton recently created the clearly unencyclopedic Category:Dying. When I offered it for discussion, Rklawton proceeded to my talk page to demand that I retract the CFD. Having challenged the category, and the placement of Fidel Castro within (where I spotted the ill-placed category), Rklawton reverted to restore the misplaced cat with a bad faith edit summary, and I was tersely informed by Rklawton on my talk that Castro was indeed terminally ill, that I was wrong to contest this whole business and that I should "take official Cuban statements with a pinch of salt"; which I found pretty patronising given my 10,000+ edits to the complex subject so far. Various unnecessary, timewasting exchanges ensued. Anyway, the category was rightfully deleted and universally opposed - also, of course, Castro is not and has never been diagnosed as terminally ill. I was left with the impression of an editor who makes some erratic and poor judgements, and when challenged is very reluctant to back down.
 * To clarify (given some of the comments above); Poor judgement, whether civil or not, is still poor judgement.
 * Creating a really poorly defined Category:Dying
 * Not accepting its entry to Category for discussion and demanding its removal
 * Reverting and restoring the inclusion of an obviously contentious figure to the obviously flawed category showing a hazy view of category policy
 * Arguing the toss about it on my talk page for some time and not at the appropriate forum.
 * I view all these elements as evidence of someone whose judgement I do not trust when trying to compile an accurate encyclopedia.-- Z leitzen (talk)  18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Poorly defined" is a quality judgement on your part (and the category was NOT "universally opposed, by the way), and your disagreement with User:Rklawton on this ONE MATTER hardly seems adequate to oppose a nomination. I have read through the discussion you posted, and I did not see any hot-headedness from User:Rklawton, nor even any points that could accurately be described as him "demanding" you do something.  He was simply disagreeing with you, which is not against ANY policy here at Wikipedia.  However, you have chosen to oppose the nomination of User:Rklawton, and that is your right.  I simply respectfully--and adamantly--disagree with your choice.K. Scott Bailey 19:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am perfectly within my rights to oppose a nominator because I believe he made a series of poor judgements in the past. By the way here's where RKlawton demands that I retract a perfectly reasonable and successful cfd - "Now, would you please retract your CfD nomination?". But that whole exchange, initiated by Rklawton was so strange - at one point he was quoting WP:V at me over Castro's supposed terminal illness - at another he asks me "Do you accept only the Communist Party line?" after my insistence that Castro has not been diagnosed as terminal, which is quite uncivil to be honest given the circumstances of the subject matter.-- Z leitzen  (talk)  08:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to reconcile "Will you plese retract your CfD" with your claim that he "demanded" you do so. The former is civil, the latter less so.  Again, it seems that you may be constructing the proverbial mountain out of a molehill.  That's unfortunate, but certainly within your rights.  As it appears it will be impossible to convince you to reconsider your vote, I retire from the discussion. K. Scott Bailey 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Assessing an editor's judgement concerning categories and WP:V in respect to the editor potentially being an administrator is one reason why we are commenting here. My opinion is based on my subjective assessment that this editor didn't have good judgement re:categories and WP:V and I have provided examples. You are well advised to retire, because your arguing against my subjective assessment has served no purpose.-- Z leitzen (talk)  18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only point I wish to make is to show objectively (not subjectively) that Rklwaton's actual WORDS don't match up well with your subjective INTERPRETATION of them. He chose very mild words ("Would you please retract") while you choose to interpret them in a much more harsh way (as a "demand").  My point is that non-vested reader of the discussion would not interpret his words as a "demand." You're within your rights to misinterpret his words. I'm also within my rights to point out what he actually wrote as opposed to your categorization of what he wrote.  (And for the record, I had no prior long-standing friendship with Rklawton.  I've been simply trying to approach this RfA from as unbiased of a viewpoint as possible.  In so doing, I've come to support his candidacy, based solely on the facts at hand.)K. Scott Bailey 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - the above diffs demonstrate that the user is heavy-handed and is searching for a fight, when all along the category that he attempted to create was inappropriate and would not have gained popular support. - Richardcavell 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above diffs demonstrate nothing of the sort. They simply demonstrate a civil disagreement between two Wikipedians.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I would also advise this opposer to abide by the initial request for the comments to be constructive and polite.K. Scott Bailey 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the advice. My decision to oppose remains. - Richardcavell 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, based on the incidents above and my own experiences with this user. — CharlotteWebb 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to comment on my RfA. In order to gain a better understanding of your objections, I searched Google for instances where our user names might appear on the same Wikipedia page, but I found nothing relevant.  Could you perhaps point to some diffs related to your objections?  Rklawton 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your search is unreliable (not to mention slightly creepy). For example, the Google results do not seem to include any of your spurious AFD nominations, of which I remember this one most clearly (though, with nearly 30,000 edits between us, surely other examples exist). So the AFD didn't turn out the way you wanted, opinions differed and nobody shared yours, nor did they share your desire to continue the debate on the article's talk page . Your overall deletionism, combined with your inability to accept defeat with some degree of grace, combined with the trigger-happy attitude you exhibited in your discussion with Xoloz, combined with the fact that your RFA will probably pass regardless of what I have to say, makes me uncomfortable. — CharlotteWebb 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "creepy" about trying to get to the bottom of a very vague statement of opposition.K. Scott Bailey 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Other people have concerns of this editors personal demeanor and I share them.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per the above, specifically the concerns addressed by Xoloz. Perhaps later. RFerreira 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Neutral, concerned about the candidate's demeanor per Xoloz after reading the situation on Zleitzen's talk page, and the RFA answers have not given me enough to feel better about it. Article and image contributions, however, seem outstanding. -- Renesis (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Switched to support following reponses to various concerns. -- Renesis (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral. Seems to have very little activity in Wikipedia talk space, which is where a large amount of admin work is done. While the User talk count is quite high (about 1/4 of total edits), I also have some concerns about issues raised by Xoloz. Therefore, I can not offer support, but I don't find anything worth opposing. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 07:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Won't go so far as to oppose neutral per concerns raised by Xoloz and Zleitzen. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I would like to see Rklawton's response to the items raised by Xoloz and Zleitzen, what he would do differently in hindsight, if anything, and how he would react to similar situations now. I'm prepared to change to a support once that occurs.  - Meersan 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to support - Meersan 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral per the suggestion of Meersan. feydey 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to support feydey 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.