Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clawson

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: He didn't "make the Red Baron jewish", check the history. One Night In Hackney303 10:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it is entirely within the bounds of good etiquette to provide a reasonable explanation for something, and equally acceptable for dgies to change his opinion based on this. – Riana ঋ 11:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Lawson not ready for Admin.