Hi, I saw your comment at Talk:Michael_Crichton#POV_that_Crichton_is_wrong and was wondering if you'd like to participate in WikiProject on shoring up one of Wikipedia's great weaknesses (how ideas can be "ganged-up" on and effectively shut-out), as you put it there.

If I can drum up enough interest, I'll start a project like WikiProject horse training, but hopefully it will attract more participants, last longer, and have greater effect. -- Uncle Ed 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A user seems bent on reverting to a version repeating unnecessarily that he is Korean. I don't see why his nationality needs be in the first line at all. I've reverted to an intro I made which I think is a lot nicer; but this person seems to show up each night and revert it. Since you also seemed interested in making a neutral article, I thought you might be able to share your input, or help improve it even better. The other party's version also (unfortunately) doesn't seem to flow as well (in my opinion)... I have a feeling this individual is alone in his opinion, and is going against the consensus. If you could watch this page I'd appreciate it. — LactoseTI ^T 05:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Then you must also want to change the Funakoshi Gichin introduction into the following more "neutral" version.

"Gichin Funakoshi (船越 義珍 Funakoshi Gichin, 1868– 1957) was a karate master who formally introduced karate to the Japanese mainland in 1921. He was born in Okinawa, but spent most of his life living in Japan."

71.124.36.224 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

LactoseTI, response is on your talk page. By the way ``71.124.36.224``, if I may use your name in such a casual fashion, please sign-in and use your user account name when you leave such insightful, non-petulant, and non-passive-aggressive comments on editor's discussion pages. Cla68 11:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Glad to hear that you felt my (very minor) edits were useful. I'm afraid, though, that I don't have any inside information about Linda Ham. Although I'm keenly interested in NASA and particularly in Mission Control, I don't have any sources of information apart from the usual, which you seem to have covered very well already. You might well be able to find the answer to those sort of questions by simply contacting NASA's Public Affairs Office, though.

The article is shaping up very well. I might pitch in a little more here and there if it wouldn't be stepping on your toes. MLilburne 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Was just wondering whether you happen to have saved a copy of the biographical article by Michael Cabbage. Alas, it seems to have disappeared into the paid section of the site, and I could do with taking a look at it. MLilburne 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the offer. I've managed to find the article (and a few more where that came from) via my university library. I could e-mail them to you as PDFs if that would be useful. MLilburne 13:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thanks for you comment on my talk page, but as you can see from LactoseTI's comment, after reviewing the contributions from IP in question, he admits he "jumped the gun a bit", which is fair enough. While I do understand the fustration of vandal fighting it is important to ensure that good faith editors (whether logged in or not) are not caught up in the crossfire simply because they edit from similar geographic areas. However, my main point at the time was to correct the misunderstanding that uncited material must be tagged and should not be removed, as that was the basis of his warnings to the IP in question. While some editors choose to tag uncited claims, they are not required to do so, and in the case of uncited critism about living people, it must be removed. That is why I removed the section you tagged in Michael Crichton, as tagging was not the correct option in this case. WP:BLP is very clear on this matter - if it's critism about a living person and uncited, remove it. When it comes to non-living people, the rule isn't as absolute, but straight removal of uncited material is still perfectly acceptable hence why I pointed out that the warning someone for taking such actions (which are justified by one of the core policies) wasn't the correct thing to do. I tend towards the stricter side of requiring immediate references, only adding {{ fact}} tags to minor details, but as I pointed out to LactoseTI, even for those taking a less strict view, tagging must only be a temporary measure, because in the end, it must boil down to one thing - "cite or remove". Regards, MartinRe 12:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. I saw your report on WP:AIV. Kindly keep in mind that you need to warn users before you report them on this page. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice work. I like quality new contributors to wikipedia (like myself) Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

your edit in my page is non factual and is in fact bad faith in itself, i consider it a vandalism to my page. I was concerned with the libel in it after revewing WP:BLP concerning some other case (being on the other side). No, i'm not the same as mantanmoreland... that's ridicilous and bad faith too since it's obvious we're not, though I've become interested in some of his interests and vice-versa, that's true. Amoruso 23:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

As to sources, the material about Weiss' education and early jobs probably comes from Weiss' blog. http://www.gary-weiss.com/bio.htm

Blogs are not always reliable as sources, of course, but it isn't clear to me why anybody would suspect Weiss of lying in the particular respects at issue here (do you really pad your resume by pretending to have working at a newspaper in Hartford, Conn.?). -- Christofurio 01:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

(removing edit by confirmed sockpuppet of User:Wordbomb)

Re [1] You reinstated a bad faith vandalism warning from the anon user in question. I and an administrator had removed personal attacks. The page of the anon user in question was semiprotected to prevent reversion of the personal attacks. Please desist from edits of that character. Thanks. -- Mantanmoreland 07:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Re [2], use of the term "self promotional" is on the cusp between aggressive POV-pushing and vandalism. Please stop.

Also, re your various comments on the Gary Weiss talk page and elsewhere (such as use of the phrase "bad faith " in [3]), please refrain from personal attacks and ad hominem comments, and please address your comments to the article and not the editor. -- Mantanmoreland 11:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Those aren't personal attacks, those are accurate descriptions of what's going-on with that article. Personal attacks are much different in nature. Evidence strongly suggests that the article is being used for self-promotion. That's a big no-no. Believe me, it's not personal. Also, unlike you, I won't be deleting your comments from my user page immediately because I don't have anything to hide. Cla68 13:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Greetings, Cla68. I saw your afd for the Gary Weiss. My concern is that it links to a non-Wikipedia site for its evidence. Technically, we're not supposed to accept off-Wikipedia evidence. What's worse, that particular site tries to "out" some Wikipedia members, posting alleged personal information and libel against them. By an earlier arbcom ruling, links to "attack sites" can be deleted by anyone, and although the page you link to isn't really problematic, the site arguably is.

For both those reasons, I'm going to remove your link. It's nothing personal, and I don't have a stake at all in whether the Gary Weiss article should be kept or not. Feel free to summarize the info from that site into the afd page. All the best, – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 17:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

After the AfD process has run its course, and if the article is voted for keeping, I'll attempt again to edit the Weiss article to remove the self-promotion and make it a neutral article that contains all cited, relevant information about the subject. If I'm blocked again in doing so, then the next step will be as you suggest. Cla68 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm curious whether I'm one of the alleged "three socks" to whom you refer in the Afd. For what it's worth to you, I'm nobody's sock. If you're determined to believe I am, I suppose you can. I'm just curious about the reference. -- Christofurio 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I really don't care if an editor is a sock puppet or not as long as they don't use Wikipedia for self-promotion or to promote someone else in violation of the Conflict of Interest guidelines and follow all of the other policies of Wikipedia. I sincerely believe that the Gary Weiss article is being used to inappropriately to promote the subject. If the usual editors of that article continue to block others from editing it or changing it within Wikipedia's guidelines, then they need to stop it. If one or more people are using several different accounts as sock puppets to block attempts to remove the POV/promotion from the article, then it's valid to state during the conflict resolution process that evidence exists that sock puppetry is occurring. Evidence is usually circumstantial, but in cumulative form can be a strong case for detecting sock puppetry. If the issues with the article are forced to be presented to arbitrators, then any evidence can be presented there. Cla68 03:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You said this: "the three editors who consistently edit and monitor the article are sock puppets...." I'm wondering: was the statement, which after all you reaffirm every moment that you don't edit it differently, intended to refer to me? That's the question. If you have three wiki names in mind of which "Christofurio" isn't one, then the right answer is "no." If you have two other names in mind plus my own when you say that, then the right answer is "yes." In neither case is "I really don't care" a responsive answer, since you cared enough to make the reference, and that's the caring that counts here. I don't care what you believe, but if you're willing to use a phrase like "three ... socks" you should be willing either to retract it or to name the three names. I am of course perfectly willing to have you bring the issue before the arbs. -- Christofurio 04:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I sincerely hope we don't have to go to arbitration, because there's an easier resolution. That's to allow other editors to edit the article within Wikipedia guidelines, whether the "regular" editors of that article necessarily agree with those edits or not. If that can happen then there's no problem, whether you're a "sock" or not. You seem more concerned over whether you're accused as one of the "socks" than about the problems with the article. I myself am accused of being the sockpuppet of a banned user in the AfD discussion about the Gary Weiss article. However, the accusation doesn't worry me because I'm not trying to do anything underhanded, I'm trying to help correct a problem article. I guess I could ask that particular editor for his/her evidence of why I'm supposedly a sockpuppet? Instead, I'd rather spend my time working to contribute to Wikipedia's body of knowledge and helping correct any abuses I find. Cla68 06:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

For the record, I'm not accusing Christofurio of being a sock puppet. Cla68 04:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

There are no "regular editors" of Gary Weiss. There is one regular vandal, and it is WordBomb. Your behavior has closely approximated his in this manner: your edit here [4], your rush to a WP:POINT AfD after approximately four contributions to the article, and your citation of an off-Wiki attack site. Yes, I believe that you are a sockpuppet of WordBomb. But if you are not, you are doing an excellent imitation of one. If you don't want to be mistaken for a sockpuppet of WordBomb, don't behave like him. Incidentally, one of his fave techniques - this from one of the most notorious sockpuppets in Wiki history - is to accuse others of sockpuppetry. Again, you came charging into that article doing just that. I have, by the way, deleted the comment at the start of this section from the latest WordBomb sockpuppet. -- Mantanmoreland 09:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Cla68. I've now twice tried to get you to give me a straight answer to a simple question. I won't try any more. You have plainly decided you don't wish to do so. You only wish to lecture me about what I should be "concerned" about. Well, frankly, I'm not at all "concerned" about the possibility of an arbitration, because I know I'm not a sock. You brought it up, not I. And your evasiveness about your own charge concerning the "three socks" is intriguing. -- Christofurio 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla, could you say what you meant this by comment, please? "Now that 'high administrator' protection for that article has apparently ended, we can methodically work on ensuring that the article belongs on Wikipedia ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I was being facetious with that comment. Some of the sources I read that have discussed the Gary Weiss Wikipedia entry in outside websites appear to believe that there's a "conspiracy" by high-level administrators to "protect" the Weiss entry. I don't believe that to be true. I can see in past actions involving that article that administrators have acted to protect it, but I don't believe they were doing so out of some sort of "conspiracy." I believe that it's just an example of extremely busy Wikipedia administrators trying to do their job to keep Wikipedia running smoothly and just didn't have the time or reason to investigate further what might be occuring with that particular entry, one of thousands that each administrator monitors. In that case, it's up to "regular" editors like me, who in addition to our regular projects (military history articles for me) sometimes try to assist the community in finding and resolving abuses occuring on Wikipedia. The Gary Weiss article, to me, is an egregious example of someone using Wikipedia for self-promotion and putting a lot of time and effort into "gaming" the Wikipedia system. I believe the "system" works and that we can bring that article back into the community, put it into the proper form for Wikipedia, and let it be one more small step in the continuous effort to, not only improve Wikipedia's body of knowledge, but to further improve Wikipedia's credibility in the world on-line community. Cla68 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note. Be careful about repeating material from attack sites, or believing any of it. The truth is that no one knows who has edited that or any other article, unless the person has identified themselves, and it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to attempt to out someone, whether the details are accurate or not. The best thing, as you say, is to keep an eye on the article so that POV in either direction can be countered or removed; if everyone edits in accordance with the content policies, there won't be a problem. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your concern and attention on the matter. There won't be a problem if whoever or whomever it is that's trying so hard to keep that article in it's present form allows other editors to add citations or delete uncited text and place additional information (as long as it's cited and credible) to the entry in accordance with Wikipedia's established guidelines. Up until now, that doesn't appear to have happened. In accordance with Wikipedia rules, I won't try to find out exactly who (if it is a particular person) may be behind what's going on with that article. But I will try to correct the problems that have been ongoing with that article since its inception, using Wikipedia's system for conflict resolution. Cla68 03:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You say something or other "doesn't appear to have happened." What has happened is that the Gary Weiss page has been a subject of repeated vandalism from one editor and one editor alone - the banned editor and notorious troll you keep chatting with, User:WordBomb. This edit [5] - in which you added the phrase "self promotional" to a descriptiion the Weiss website - is classic WordBomb, and so is your other behavior on the Gary Weiss page, its talk page, as well as your reversion of WordBomb "warnings" to my talk page and Amoroso's. Even if you are not WordBomb, your are doing an excellent imitation of one. Your repeated warm dialogue with the confirmed WordBomb sockpuppet was classic WordBomb. Your AfD was classic WP:POINT as well as classic WordBomb. I suggest that you desist.-- Mantanmoreland 09:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, you're attacking the messenger, not the message. The problem is that much of the article is uncited and appears to come from Weiss' blog or personal website. Also, cited and referenced material, neutrally presented, is deleted without discussion. The structure of the article, as commented on by other editors in the AfD discussion, contains material that is promotional and inappropriate in nature for a Wikipedia entry. Everytime you attack my credibility, I'll repeat this same list of problems that currently exist in the article, because these problems are the entire crux of the matter. Once these issues are resolved, there will no longer be a problem because I, and the rest of the community, will have done our duty in helping resolve this situation. Have you complained to the other editors from the AfD discussion who expressed similar concerns to mine? I'm not the only one that feels that the article has problems that need to be remedied. Cla68 09:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You keep on making broad generalities such as "cited and referenced material, neutrally presented, is deleted without discussion" when in fact the problem is a limited number of POV-pushing edits by yourself over a period of several hours. There was nothing "neutral" about this edit [6]. It was, as I pointed out, on the cusp between crude POV pushing and vandalism. The other significant problematic edit was your adding an entire section on a ten-year-old, withdrawn lawsuit that was inaccurately described by yourself. Yes, your wording of it was neutral, which was why I did not challenge it when I first saw it. However, a few days later I read the cited editor's note and saw that you were totally mischaracterizing what had happened.

As for the supposed "sourcing" problems with the article -- this is a brief article about a journalist taken from the public record that recites his background in a neutral fashion. Using routine biographical material (worked at a paper in Connecticut, etc.) from the personal website of the subject of an article is routine practice. This article is no different from the dozens of other articles about journalists that are the subject of articles in Wiki. The only difference is that this journalist is the subject of a smear campaign, of which an essential part is that attack website you are quoting and whose attitudes you reflect. Your harping on this is further evidence of your bad faith and agenda.

As I see it, the only "problems" with this article is the waste of time involved in dealing with your POV pushing and disruptive behavior. You came to this article with a massive chip on your shoulder and have been aggressive and hostile, as the result of being either a flag-bearer for the attack website you have quoted or being a sockpuppet yourself. Either way, your behavior is unacceptable.-- Mantanmoreland 10:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Once the AfD has run its course, and if the article is voted to be kept, I, and any other interested editors, will show how the article should look based on any credible references that exist. You can decide what to do after that. Cla68 10:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Cla, thank you for your note. I applaud your desire to get the article in shape, but I do urge caution. The article is under attack by sockpuppets of a banned user. You should not restore any warning templates to Mantanmoreland's talk page, in case they were placed there by the banned user. You should also not make edits such as this one. Please review the content policies very carefully, particularly WP:V. This states that personal websites, including blogs, may be used as sources in articles about the author, although they should be used with caution. Here is the relevant section. You should therefore not remove material simply because it is sourced to one of Weiss's websites, nor should you write anything to suggest the website can't be trusted. Also, please don't imply sockpuppetry of regular editors without strong evidence: Christofurio, for example, is not a sockpuppet. I strongly urge you to put out of your mind anything you may have read on an attack website and simply approach this article with a view to ensuring that it neutrally represents the positions of all reliable published sources, which includes Gary Weiss's own material. If you stick to doing that, you won't go far wrong. For what it's worth, I've advised Mantanmoreland to consider not editing this article anymore, simply because of the amount of grief it's causing him. However, the more aggressively it's edited by others, the more he will feel the need to remain involved, so please bear that in mind too. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem. Actually, I was planning on using Weiss' official site as a reference when I work on it. I really don't think Matanmoreland has as much to fear from me as he thinks he does. Also, I don't think I accused Christofurio of being a sockpuppet, although the way he approached me about it made me wary, based on how other defenders of that article have acted with regard to this issue. Cla68 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Re yer note on my page, I appreciate the civil tone but to be frank I simply don't believe any cleanup is necessary and that the article is fine as it is. This is a basic brief journalist bio written in neutral tone and is comparable to similar journalist bios. See Gerald Posner, Penny Lernoux and pretty much every other journo biog you can find. Posner's doesn't have a single cite and the source is obviously his website. I fail to see how festooning Posner's bio with cites and footnotes pointing to his site adds much value and it is the same for Weiss. I simply took the bio data out of that website [7], and you are right that the site is down. I agree that the libel suit does not belong, as it is undue weight at the current length as well as anything shorter. It is fairly brief as is and I can't see much point in cutting, except maybe the quote.-- Mantanmoreland 10:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I see that you've again resorted to unecessary "cite" tags and gratuitous cuts that are sheer POV pushing. As I explained previously on your talk page, the source of the "education and early career" section can be found here, and it was also explained to you that personal websites are acceptable sources of such data. The sources of the "magazine articles" section are the articles themselves ( [8], [9] and the Weiss website. The source of the description of Born to Steal is, obviously, the book itself. -- Mantanmoreland 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I fixed as much concerns as possible. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Cla, I have to tell you once more that it is a violation of Wikipedia policy and a blockable offense to post or restore comments that seek to "out" another editor, whether accurately or otherwise. Please don't add or restore such comments again. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I guess I'm still learning some of this stuff the hard way. I thought it was me that couldn't level those kind of accusations. I didn't know that I couldn't keep any text around from another editor making those types of statements. I know now. Cla68 12:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Cla68, read this entire page very carefully and consider taking directions on what to do on wikipedia from someone else besides the 2 editors that have an usual interest in this matter. Read all of antisocialmedia.net's front page, you'll find answers, troubling ones, to your questions 71.70.155.234 04:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

A while ago, you were so good as to take a look at my article on Glynn Lunney and offer some suggestions. I was wondering whether you would be willing to do so again. It is now up as a featured article candidate, but has rather a shortage of reviewers, perhaps due to the specialised nature of the topic. If you have the time to take a look at it and either support or object, I would be very grateful. Thanks. MLilburne 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for the barnstar, and still more for the advice and support that you've offered at various stages of the FAC process. It was the Linda Ham article that first gave me the idea and the hope that I could actually get Glynn Lunney all the way to featured status. My next project is Chris Kraft, but I'm planning to take a long hard look at Space Shuttle Columbia disaster over the Christmas holidays, and see what I can do. MLilburne 10:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, → Bobby ← 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I had picked up your name on the Allied war crimes during World War II page. I saw in the history that Mitsos had changed your edit with the explanation " rvv this is vandalism the article is blanked" even though your revision clearly wasn't blanked. When I looked at it more closely today, I saw that Mitsos was probably referring to an earlier edit by another user, even though his edit summary made it look like he was accusing you. Sorry I contacted you about this; I should have looked at the history a bit more closely. That being said, if you want to head over to the RfC, I'm sure the community would appreciate your comments. Cheers, → Bobby ← 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Cla68, I am not sure if this is the place to do it but I wanted to express my gratitude to you. I am just a user here, no edits. I somehow picked up on a recent confrontation you had with another editor, Mantanmoreland, and it got interesting enough that I dug deeper and deeper trying to follow the story (and learning how Wikipedia works and the terminology in the meantime). Let me say as an outsider that it is clear what is going on. Not just clear but blatant. It has totally changed my view of what has happened to Wikipedia at this stage in its development.

But all is not lost, as long as people like you take principled stances even when the time/effort/headache cost is hard to justify. Every society big and small absolutely needs people like that. I don't know if you are actually involved with the military in real life or if this is just a hobby but I'd like to think you are. I remember having enjoyed the movie "A Man for All Seasons" about Sir Thomas More and my username is a quote from that (albeit misconjugated), "To stay silent is to give consent" . I can't think of a situation more apt. Obviously nothing earth shattering is going on here but most systems are corrupted/killed by a thousand paper cuts while decent people stand by and do nothing.

The people involved in this argument may think they smoothly "handled" a situation by using Wiki legalese and being persistent and watching each other's backs but they are wrong. They have made a minor spectacle of themselves.

Anyway, I got carried away. I just wanted to say thank you for your efforts. It moved me enough to write. I am sure for every one person who says it, there are a hundred who think it. QuiTacetConsentiret 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

As a courtesy, I wanted to draw advise you of my response to your comments in AN/I, in case you're not monitoring that page.-- Mantanmoreland 15:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Cla68,

I noticed that you have a lot of experience with getting articles to FA status. I have been working on the Ohio Wesleyan University page article and am trying to get it to FA status. I was wondering if you could provide some advice on how the article can be improved? Also, any contributions to it will be even more appreciated! Thank you so much for your time! I greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 01:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You have made an entry on my talk page regarding Rex Germanus ( talk · contribs) original report [10] on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He has filed another report there since. Please check the case again, and update your comments. Thanks in advance. --  Matthead  ^discuß!      O       22:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your helfpul edits to the article. This is the kind of help that will get the article to FA status. Thank you again! WikiprojectOWU 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear Cla68,

Happy New Year! And thank you so much once again for you very helpful comments. I included all of them and I included numerous suggestions made by various reviewers. Do you mind taking a look one more time at the article Ohio Wesleyan University. Any comments will be very much appreciated!!! WikiprojectOWU 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for the quick response! Which sentences you think are uncited? I will try to add citations. Thanks again! WikiprojectOWU 23:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Excellent! I provided the citations for the paragraphs that you had mentioned. Thank you again! WikiprojectOWU 00:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• I added all of your suggestions. If anything else comes up, please do let me know. Thank you agai for your help! WikiprojectOWU 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the cites that he's an Eagle Scout, but please format them properly. You may want to add them to his main artilcle too. This Eagle Scout list is a featured list, so the cites need to be in a standard format. Rlevse 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I did some minor work on the main article to help out. I spent 3 years in Tachikawa when I was a kid, then later 3 in Atsugi and 2 in Misawa. Rlevse 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

We actually have discussed removing some trivia on the Southwest Airlines article - I invite you to join the discussion. Cheers! -- Matt 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear Cla68,

Thank you again for leaving me feedback for the Ohio Wesleyan University. I addressed the two concerns regarding the lead paragraph and the referencing that you brought up in January. Thank you once again! I just nominated the article in the FAC process. LaSaltarella 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

By the way, are you an admin? If not, would you like to be? If so, I'd be happy to nominate you. —wwoods 20:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, I was considering trying to become an administrator. I'm not sure if I would pass the review though. I haven't participated that much in some of the community "clean-up" activities like the AfD voting pages or the Community noticeboard and I've had a few "run-ins" with other established editors, including a couple of the more well-known administrators. If you think I could pass the admin review, however, I would accept the nomination. Cla68 23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hmm. I don't think the lack of community participation is a show-stopper; I don't do that much myself. I thought to ask when I saw you reverting vandalism – not for the first time – and wondered if you didn't have access to the admin tools. I don't know about your disputes with other admins, so I don't know how they'll feel... If you want to try, I'll push the button. Here's what happened to me:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wwoods

There's a standard set of questions. Don't forget to mention all those Featured Articles. :-)

—wwoods 02:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

So someone gets a valid vandism notice, removes it, gets reported to AIV and the admin checks to see if they have been warned and has to dig through history pages to find it? Ha, I'll stop fighting vandals if I have to do that. Rlevse 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with new "rule" or not, just letting you know what seems to be the situation now from what I've read on the admin pages. One of the reasons may be due to instances of editors harrassing other editors with warning banners and then arguing back and forth about whether the warning was justified or not. Cla68 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your helpful comments on my ANI posting regarding User:Orangemarlin. Could you please take a look at this? I imagine he feels justified by part of this discussion, where another editor comments that he likes my extensive refactoring of the Talk:Evolution but mentions refactoring should have broad consensus. Gnixon 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You wrote:

• "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)"

We can use all the help you can give us at WP:WPSPAM! Check out the talk page if you haven't already. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I've put that page on my watchlist and hope to help out in the future. Cla68 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68, please refrain from posting links to sites that attack or attempt to 'out' Wikipedia editors. If you persist in doing so, you could be blocked. Many thanks, Crum375 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't link to the site. I just named it since it is the subject of discussion. Again, I didn't link to it as you state in your warning. I've seen other sites that are definitely Wikipedia attack sites get named in the Admin noticeboards without being deleted. Cla68 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Whether the user simply clicks on the name, or pastes it into the browser's URL window and hits 'Enter', is immaterial - the point is to not provide those links, that attack or attempt to out your fellow editors, in any format. Please refrain from doing so - once you have been reverted, that should make it very clear. If you persist, you will be blocked. Crum375 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Please read this ArbCom case, where ArbCom ruled that "links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.". Crum375 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's basically the current policy. (Given the benefit of hindsight, though, that ruling has lots of holes in it. It doesn't prohibit, for example, offering to email the link to anyone who asks, which is pretty much the same thing in terms of being responsible for distributing material. I suspect our definition of attack sites is going to have to be reconsidered given recent events, in any case.)

But, on a practical level, please don't link to or name the site; it's unlikely to improve affairs at this point. Kirill Lokshin 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry for all this stuff. Nevertheless, I want you to know that such unfortunate events happen and have happened to everybody of us. In such cases, the acknowledgement that we did something wrong is the best thing to do (I say that from personal experience!). In any case, my support still stands, because I still regard you as one of the best around, and all those who know you well will not cease to respect and admire you.-- Yannismarou 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry to see what happened in your RfA; you were a very deserving candidate. SlimVirgin did almost the exact same thing to me in my RfA two months ago, smearing me with wild accusations about WordBomb. I hope you'll try again in a few months and come into it fully prepared to fend off the accusations. Everyking 13:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Seems to me that you have two options here. You can live with the fact that this whole affair will for ever haunt your wikipedia experience - or you can learn from it and try to draw a line under it. If you try again for RfA in a few months, you will probably fail again as a lot of folk will say 'that's that guy that defended attack sites - oppose'. Your alternative is to reflect on why people are unhappy - and, after a few days, make a statement reflecting on your mistakes, what you'd do differently, and how you understand the community's concerns (you don't have to agree with them, you just need to show that you've noted them and will avoid the behaviour that concerns others). If you can do that, I'd suggest you file a self-RfC - you'll get a lot of stick in the short term but if you can hold your tongue and not be too defensive you'll find you draw off quite a bit of the criticism. That way if you file an RfA in a few months, people will, on the whole, consider the issue dealt with and examine your otherwise excellent contributions since.-- Doc^g 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68 - Thank you for responding to my Q7 in your RfA. Your RfA closed 2-1/2 hours after your Q7 response, so I was unable to reply in the RfA. Since the RfA is closed, the point seems moot. If there is anything to be taken away from your RfA is that SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland do not seem to think that you are trustworthy and they still feel hurt. I do not know Mantanmoreland, but have seen enough of SlimVirgin's posts to know that she is honest in expressing what she believes. Other than deleting the diffs, there isn't much else that can be done about the past. In the end, it comes down to that some people still feel hurt by what happened and you are in a position help resolve their feelings. Jimbo put it best in early March 2007 when he indicated that Wikipedia is built on us trusting each other and on human understanding and forgiveness of errors. [11] I think that your efforts to generate understanding were not well received because trust needs to come first. If you work on repairing SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland's trust in you, there eventually may be understanding and then perhaps forgiveness. Best wishes. -- Jreferee 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I just noticed your request for page protection posted to WP:ANI. You should probably file at WP:RFPP. Regards, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, I said that there "appears to be a pattern." I know that she banned User:ManEatingDonut in the middle of a content dispute. I have seen it alleged in other cases, but I haven't the time to investigate the other cases, plus it is difficult to communicate with banned users. I suppose I could remove the phrase, or modify it. What would you recommend? -- NathanDW 05:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

hey, please quit being an enormously sensitive fag, fag. xoxo, 69.143.136.139 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Don't be coy. If you have something to say, like "HEY I'M GONNA BAN YOU", please do so. Ambiguous "warnings" are a waste of both of our time. 69.143.136.139 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I appreciate you taking the time to look over my contributions and cites on Masada. As I previously mentioned, as jayjg did not communicate with me or even publicly justify his actions to revert and ban me, I wrote to him on his talk page asking: "Can you please explain why you've blocked me from editing articles and reverted all my contributions, even from past articles? Specifically Masada, why have you reverted it to a state that predates my edits and now leaves no mention of the glaring fact that in Israel and int'l academic circles the myth of Masada has been exposed by various authors of high repute and published in major publications? Why have you not attempted to communicate with me about any of this? Have you read the cites I provided? Are you aware of any reputable sources that contradict these sources?"

As you can see, here, he undid my question and removed it from his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&diff=144103240&oldid=144098410 I don't think anyone with the powers of administration should be behaving like this. My worry is that he will further ban me so I'll be unable to correspond. Truth-evenifithurts 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand that it can be frustrating to be involved in a dispute over the content of an article, especially when one may be unfamiliar with the "rules" of Wikipedia. Cronholm144 appears to be trying to mediate a way forward. I think you should work with him and his generous efforts to try to resolve the matter. If you have any questions about how the dispute resolution process works, please feel free to ask me or anyone else and they should be more than willing to help you out. Cla68 06:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Cla68, I just noticed your RFA and saw the comments left by SlimVirgin. Sorry but I must oppose unless I get a full explanation for your poor judgment in linking to an attack site and supporting a banned user over an Wikipedia admin in good standing. Nothing personal against you but I always take a strong stand against harassment of Wikipedians. Burn out is a real problem for our best admins due to the harassment they face daily. Take care, FloNight 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I have added a question to your RfA page requesting that you respond to the issues that have been raised. I look forward to seeing your response. Newyorkbrad 13:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Note that your RFA has been extended for 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#RfA extension request. This should give you time to address the last minute concerns raised on your RFA. Take care, FloNight 14:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems from your talk page and some of your recent interactions with users that you are a sort of pov-crusader. This may or may not surprise you, but I'd ask that you at least consider it. If several people are suggesting it may be true, chances are they aren't claiming it from a vacuum. It would make me happy if you could be sensitive to the fact that, no matter how noble you think your intentions are. After all, you're not working on the encyclopedia for your own benefit, it matters what your peers and readers think.

Food for thought. 17.255.240.146 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

To be honest, I find your post to be somewhat cryptic. The only big conflicts I've really had with others that I remember have been over the issues surrounding my involvement with the Gary Weiss article. As far as POV conflicts, I've debated some other editors on a few article talk pages, but then I usually go away after stating my point and don't engage in edit wars. So, I'm not sure what you mean. I suspect you don't like something I said somewhere. If you want to be more specific, then maybe we can discuss exactly what is bothering you. Cla68 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

How about recent history, then, to clear up some ambiguity... The above user's complaint about "western imperialism," which you outright dismissed. What brought this to mind was my own personal experience with your addition of "machine gunning survivors." Two blatant, clear, expressions of point-of-view by way of spin. I left it intentionally ambiguous so you wouldn't be so stupid as to assume it was limited to just one or two occasions. Of course, having pointed this out, and called you on it, I suspect you'll respond in the same manner as the unfortunate "fag" comments above. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate what it is you are contributing here. Especially in light of the fact that the cabal has already taken you to task for it on your recent RFA. Lastly, as it is the common tactic to call people such as myself a troll (because we haven't built personal shrines to ourselves in user space and do not frequently deign to interact with other users), I'll encourage you to keep an eye on my contributions, and on the contributions of other anonymous users who take the time to speak up. Because I disagree with you and dislike your attitude and contributions, does not necessarily label me as such. In fact, I very well could be another user with thousands of contributions, and simply not logging in. So, consider what I say, not how I say it.

If, that is, you are capable. Ball, your court, et cetera. 17.255.240.146 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Your response is civil and doesn't look like trolling to me, so I won't responding in the way that you suggest that I might. I'm usually more than willing to discuss my reasoning behind the edits that I make, because I don't have any secret agendas and don't have anything to hide when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. If you look at the articles that I've been heavily involved with (listed on my "personal shrine" page), you'll notice that I try to show both sides of the event. My purpose is to present the subject in a way that doesn't hide anything. Jimbo Wales discussed this very issue recently in an interview with the Japan Times ( [12]) in which he describes how articles about the same thing in different languages' Wikipedias sometimes present different sides on the same subject. I try to present both, thus my comment about considering that Japan might have a point in considering Western actions in Asia early in the 20th century to be "imperialism" and the fact that U.S. warplanes strafed survivors from a sinking Japanese warship (which is, of course, cited to a credible source). In the Battle of Edson's Ridge, I also point out that the Japanese tortured and killed several Marine prisoners that they captured (in one of the footnotes). So, I'm not favoring either side, just trying to get out the complete story, which, obviously makes some uncomfortable. Cla68 02:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The user User:Heatedissuepuppet‎ has been editing your summary of the article (which I felt was a fair representation of the article contents) to remove mention of Metropolis (he is an anti-Metropolis troll, see his history). I felt that rather than have an unbalanced intro that the entire summary you added would be better removed for now. If, however, you would like to put it back in I would not object. Sparkzilla 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I rarely engage in edit wars with someone. I usually just wait a month or two then go back and correct whatever that particular POV-pusher was trying to do. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. I think that I'll leave a comment on the article's talk page, though, to build a foundation on the issue for the future in case the disagreement escalates. I personally think that the Metropolis/Japan Today reporting on the issue is notable because it was that publication that "broke" the story on the numerous inconsistencies in Baker's advocate's claims about his case. I believe I'm a neutral third party, because I don't have any connection to Metropolis even though I live in Japan. As a "foreigner" living in Japan, of course I've followed his case with interest as well as the perception of how the Japanese justice system treats "foreign" accused. In fact, I recently started an article about Michael Brown (United States Marine Corps officer). Cla68 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68, I just got accused via a formal checkuser of being "wordbomb". i notice a friend of this aaccuser also obliquely tried to pin the wordbomb scarlet A on you as well by trying to say you were from Utah. Coy that one. Any ideas on how to edit any articles that he who cannot be named except on holier-than-all-of-us's userboxes has also edited without getting framed and banned? Piperdown 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Some in this community really don't like whoever this Wordbomb user was. I believe, however, that "they're" overreacting by falsely accusing other editors of being Wordbomb. This issue needs to be discussed by the community and "put to bed" so that we can move-on in improving the project without spending so much time dealing with these distractions. I'll probably start an RfC as soon as I can get the text of it drafted. Since you're now involved, I think your endorsement of the RfC would be valid which is required to keep the RfC from being deleted. If you're willing or able to join it, I'll let you know before I post it. Cla68 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I dunno if I'll be commenting on any RFC's since my first comments on one garnered me a frivolous checkuser. Requester even lied about my edit patterns being the same as "wordbomb". Interesting argument, as that banned user has no edit patterns to compare. Talk about a Catch-22, I've seen this sort of complicated framing in movies and now on wikipedia. I'll probably chime in on such an effort, have the utmost respect for your editing history. Perhaps they can run a checkuser on both of us. Is Utah a town in Japan, or do some admins just think other people won't question their B.S.? Piperdown 00:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand. We'll see how it goes. I'd rather discuss this whole situation in an RfC rather than a post on the Community Noticeboard, because an RfC would exist as its own page that I could reference whenever anyone brought up the subject, like what happened on my RfA. Thank you for the compliment on my edit history. I spend a lot of time trying to take articles to FA-level quality and time spent defending my involvement in the Gary Weiss situation or countering false accusations (could it be as someone stated on WP:AN/I "It's the sound of axes busily grinding?") detracts from that effort. Cla68 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure, it's fine by me. Everyking 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I wonder if you would be so kind as to make a comment regarding the proposed merge of Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) and Crisscross. Discusion is here: Talk:Crisscross. Sparkzilla 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

A RfC has been started regarding the use of sources (including Metropolis) as "exceptional claims" on the above article. As an previously interested party, your input would be most valued. Comment Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments. Thank you. Sparkzilla 06:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I wonder if you could have a look at this summary of the RFC and give me your comments... [13] Sparkzilla 16:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comment, I appreciate it. I would appreciate if you could make a simialr comment here: [14] Best regards. Sparkzilla 05:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your comments re the Baker case. Regarding your recent comment, would you mind reinserting the text regarding my editorial and its three supporting sources? Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

To make sure that I understand correctly, did the discussion on the talk page result in any changes to how the text used to read? Were any sources disputed and any new sources added? Cla68 05:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Test. CLA 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Test. Cla 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Test. cla 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for reviewing the David Lewis (politician) article. I'll try to clean it up, per your suggestions, by Monday. I've been waiting a month for someone to give me some feedback. Best regards. -- Abebenjoe 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've reviewed the article. Please see my comments at the talk page. -- Der yck C. ^{review my hometown!} 08:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've promoted the article. Of course, we still hope to see more improvements in the future. -- Der yck C. 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The short answer is that Anynobody hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about. There's nothing wrong with what you're doing here. Kirill Lokshin 08:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Self-RfCs have never needed an administrator's counter-signature to be valid. You're fine. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

As part of a response to your RfC, SlimVirgin has declared that a post from an IP in a New Jersey suburb that "vandalized" Mantanmoreland's user page is from "wordbomb". As she is declaring in the same post that wordbomb is a certain person to works for Overstock and resides in Utah, I'd thought you like to use that information in your response. I have reviewed the "wordbomb" sock page, and a large percetange of the IP addresses listed are scattered throught the US, including metro Atlanta, the NJ-NYC metro area. These were "socked" by SlimVirgin in a blanket wordbombing it appears. I think you'd also be interested Piperdown 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

SV also lists herself as one of the admins who reviewed this case last year. Could you ask this person why User:mantanmoreland removed his reference to himself being the nephew of user:LastExit, why LastExit refers to himself of an Uncle of a wikipedian, and why LastExit contains a sockpuppet notice on his userpage? It's bit odd for an uncle and a nephew to converse with each other in real time on their user talk pages, instead of off-wiki communication, don't you think? Piperdown 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your inputs, but the purpose of the RfC isn't to explore the WordBomb issue or any issues with any other editor on Wikipedia. The RfC is to deal with issues surrounding my actions. Please feel free to comment or ask any questions in the RfC and I appreciate your input. CLA 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You're right, the RfC is about the reasons you've been railroaded. My comments there will try to focus on the issues that have been cited in the rejection of your RfA and not the COI cover-ups, rule gaming, abuse of wikipower, or hypocrisy that the editors who advocated your rejection might or might not have exhibited in the past. That can be saved for any RFA nominations, or any admin status retention reviews that might take place in the future for any such editors Piperdown 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note on your RfC. I've left you a comma-laden reply at User talk:Dekimasu. I haven't contributed much to the RfC page itself, but I may come back to it in the future. Dekimasu よ! 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) I'm busy preparing to become an admin reply

Well, it was tagged with the project tag... ;-)

(But, really, the various reviews are there as assistance for those who want it; you're under no obligation to go through them all if you don't feel the need. Certainly, for someone with your level of FA experience, I suspect that they're more formalities than anything else at this point.) Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help on the Nottingham Panthers article GA review. I've now done all that was requested that you believed neccessary when the article was put on hold. PanthersGirl 20:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem. :) -- Neutrality ^talk 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

From my talk page:

Thank you for your comments in my RfC. I hope that getting the full story out in a single location will be of benefit should questions about what occurred ever come up again. I look forward to working with you in continuing to help improve the project now and in the future. Thanks again. CLA 07:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I hope that you got more insight into my concerns from my comment. At this point putting the incident in the past is probably best for all. Take care, FloNight 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Flonight seems to have a history of putting ugly things for certain wikipedians in the past, but not others. This particular ugly thing that Cla68 stumbled into and took "friendly" fire from, is preventing him from ever becoming an admin due to the response from those involved and their 70 cyberfriends. I'm curious why Flonight is eager to put this "incident" involving an untouchable editor who even flonight and at least two other "arbitrators" of some unknown qualification are on record according to diffs of having such serious sockpuppetry and vanity doubts about that reviews of that behavior was hush-hushed off record and a wrist slap applied (a sock notice on a now-latent sockpuppet userpage). So Cla68 didn't properly handle a WP:COI incident by not reporting his fact findings on the WP:COI noticeboard instead of on that user's pages. These admins should have guided Cla68 on how to properly report WP:COI findings that are publicly verifiable instead of directly making such statements on userpages. Piperdown 14:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Cla68, have you considered a partnership with a wikipedian who can remove edits [15] to erase any evidence of any past edits you have made that could be used against you in a kangaroo court of wikipedia? Might be the way to go. If your edits on GW are just erased by a magic wand of unaccountability, all your wikiproblems could be solved. It almost worked for Nixon with his tapes. Everyone needs a secretary with a finger on the big red erase button, don't they? ;-) Piperdown 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Since your user page doesn't say you have a page on meta wiki, lack of authentification proof, the endorsement submitted by that account will be removed. Just for your information. -- Aphaia 04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

For supporting my nomination for adminship, I appreciate it. Grant | Talk 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem. CLA 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee ( Talk) 08:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Cla68, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Hús ö nd 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply Obrigado, Cla68, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Hús ö nd 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{ GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. -- Nehrams2020 03:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! --  But| seriously| folks  09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Congrats on the recent promotion of the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident. Keep up the good work. KnightLago 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi - In case you were wondering, your sig showed up as CLA at WP:WBFAN since that's how your most recent FA nom was signed (at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2007). Direct edits at WBFAN are generally overwritten the next time I run the bot - I changed your sig at Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007 so it will stick. -- Rick Block ( talk) 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

		Thank you
		Thank you for your support of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. — TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there:

I think all the copyedit work has been completed on the David Lewis (politician) article, thereby completing the last item on your to-do list before it can be reviewed again. So I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and give it your seal of approval? Thanks again for your insights, they did improve the article substantially. -- Abebenjoe 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I apologize that I'm really busy this week and can't get to the article right now. I'll review it as soon as I have a chance. Cla68 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, look forward to when you have the time. -- Abebenjoe 03:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for passing it. I'll try fix up the remaining grammar errors and tidy-up some of the language. Again, your comments were most helpful in making this a better article. Best regards.-- Abebenjoe 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Saldivar.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there Cla. I have tried to address your concerns where I feel that they are applicable. Regards, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla. Thank you for your words of support. As I mentioned to EliminatorJR, I do not intend to give up, as I do not wish to give the cliques who have opposed me the satisfaction. It will certainly be interesting to see if I can "claw back" enough support votes to come through! Number 5 7 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to say thanks again for your congratulations! Number 5 7 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you explain what in the Skúli Þórsteinsson article you believe requires cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards? Haukur 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! I noticed you had a ton of featured articles. I have two pages nominated for GA, would you mind taking a pass at them? They are 2007 Peruvian meteorite event and Joe Szwaja. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I reviewed both articles and made some comments under "Peer review" on the talk pages for each. Great work on the articles. Cla68 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Cla! I'll start going back over them again. • Lawrence Cohen 03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

We couldn;t do it without you. 129.108.206.206 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Would you mind taking a gander at Storm botnet and Ballard Carnegie Library? The Carnegie I submitted for GA, but I don't think Botnet is quite there yet. And, thanks to your help, 2007 Peruvian meteorite event passed GA! • Lawrence Cohen 05:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Please do not edit the RfC statement in Talk:Gary Weiss. As originally drafted it contains neutral language. Please stop your POV pushing and please be aware of the three revert rule.-- Samiharris 03:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

As originally drafted it doesn't contain neutral language. In fact, it implies that material from AntiSocialMedia.net is used in the section, when all of the text is resourced to NYTimes, NYPost, Bloomberg, and one of Weiss' books. Cla68 03:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I changed it to "section on" rather than "material from." You should have simply raised the issue in talk, rather than used that as yet another opportunity to POV push.-- Samiharris 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That's more neutral. Thank you. Cla68 03:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

This account has been blocked for 24 hours for WP:POINT at Talk:Gary Weiss after repeated warnings. Durova ^Charge! 21:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Are the warnings on this page? I see no warnings. 69.143.236.33 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Dissent will not be tolerated. -- arkalochori ^|talk| 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

No, Violations of WP:POINT will not be tolerated. If you cannot tell the difference, take some time off to study the policy, and feel free to request mentoring from an expeienced editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.

Was the statement: "Most of us usually try to give some reasoning for any action, proposed action, or threatened action that we discuss on an article's talk page. Would you mind doing the same?" ironic? A lot [16] humanity has a problem understanding irony. Even Wikipedia has problems getting it right as the irony article states: "This article or section appears to contradict itself."

I assume that the blocking administror suspected you were attempting the irony as infinite, absolute negativity type of irony: "While many reputable critics limit irony to something resembling Aristotle's definition, an influential set of texts insists that it be understood, not as a limited tool, but as a disruptive force with the power to undo texts and readers alike."

The WP:POINT page is a mess - I'll fix it up later. I agree with Sjakkalle who stated: "Continuing to argue in a discussion which is to all respects over is bad form and shows excessive stubborness, but it is not a WP:POINT violation if the view you are arguing for is sincerely the one you hold." Uncle uncle uncle 07:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I almost never assign blocks shorter than 24 hours because they often do more harm than good, but this request comes from Jimbo. For the good of the project, please set the right example by coming back to the page with solid references and strictly topical discussion. Durova ^Charge! 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with the above, don't blow it this time. VoL†ro/\/Force 05:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Ummm, what do you mean by solid references? The four references cited in the text I proposed were: 1) New York Times, 2) New York Post, 3) Bloomberg (already cited in the article) and 4) one of Weiss's own books. The validity of the sources wasn't one of the issues in the discussion, it was WP:NPF. Did you read the article discussion? Cla68 11:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

See User:Durova/Recusal. Plenty of good editors have one hot button where they just aren't good at collaborating. 9/11 and World Trade Center are mine; this is yours. I realized my shortcoming very early and adjusted my editing accordingly. If you had done the same - to read your RFA - you'd be sysopped by now. You really are an excellent editor on most points and I hope to vote for you someday. I'm not sure why you've followed this course on this topic, but it really undermines what ought to be a sterling reputation on the project. Rather than address particular minutiae, step back and look at that larger picture. Durova ^Charge! 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think you're being completely honest here, because some comments that you've made on IRC appear to indicate that your motivation for your actions is different than what you've stated above and elsewhere in Wikipedia [17]. Implying that all the anti-BADSITES editors are united in some menacing conspiracy against you and this project is not only insulting, it's dishonest. Cla68 03:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

First, a quick FYI: I never do admin channel IRC. I see you actually mean the mailing list, and yes. Bear in mind I referred to a group of people in aggregate, most of whom have done far less for Wikipedia than you have. As someone who knows you only from your contributions, it seems almost like reading two different people looking on, say, the military history side in comparison to this. So I suppose if I'd hung around my hot button area I could have made a similar set of mistakes. I certainly regard you as a quality editor overall. And maybe you're ideally positioned to set the right tone if you keep editing Gary Weiss and related articles. Either way, I mean what I said about hoping to support you at RFA after this is behind you. I've given barnstars to people I've brought back from sitebans. My trust can be earned. Best, Durova ^Charge! 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

My mistake on calling it by the wrong name. Glad to hear you keep you don't participate in the admin IRC. See you around the project, hopefully under happier circumstances. Cla68 06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68. I have sent you an email in response to your Veropedia inquiry. We would love to have you on board. If you do not use IRC, please send me another email and we can get things done that way. Danny 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

This [18] is absolutely unacceptable. The incident is long past, well and truly dead and buried, and has been explained to the satisfaction of all concerned. If you repeat this nonsense you may be blocked from editing for harassment, because that is what it is. Guy ( Help!) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It has been explained? If so, please show me where it is so I can read the explanation. Cla68 ( talk) 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

And why did you remove this question from your talk page? Cla68 ( talk) 07:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It appears they are one in the same? Time stamps of block are somewhat curious. Here is what I wrote on my talk page; it will likely be reverted: "Good questionCla68. I will discuss this when I am back in the U.S. Right now, I have been blocked by "Sarah" / JzG. It appears by the time stamps that they are on a team?" 68.192.34.33 ( talk) 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe you should try to be a bit less conspicuous when you evade your indefinite block Lee...-- Isotope23 ^talk 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Who's Lee? Cla68 ( talk) 14:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, they (JzG and Isotope23) are close...yet I would not go there, for many good reasons. 210.131.4.188 ( talk) 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd love to know what I'm supposed to be "close" to, all I did was apply {{ indefblockeduser}} to the talk page to avoid confusion - people were still posting there as if the editor was not blocked. Guy ( Help!) 15:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Your assumption of bad faith is duly noted, but was in this case quite wrong. Your post to !!'s talk was trollish and incivil, designed to inflame rather than bring calm to an already tense situation. Thank you for the warning, allow me to respond in kind: stop trolling or you may be blocked from editing. Feel free to rephrase your statement of support on !!'s talk page in a way that is less offensive. Guy ( Help!) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't name anyone in my post, so it wasn't a personal attack. I don't make a comment unless I'm willing to stand by it. Attacks by "sleuthing" admins on productive editors, like Durova did in this case, won't be tolerated by the community. After reading her email I see how dangerous her attitude is. The fact that some are trying to defend her actions are scary, especialy by those of us who mainly concentrate on quality content, as opposed to trying to curry favor by rooting out supposed Wikipedia Review sleeper agents. Cla68 ( talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You really know how to get into it and get the real hard core wikipedians (i.e. those that argue about process all day and never contribute to the actual encyclopedia) all riled up. Congrats and keep up the good work.-- Looper5920 ( talk) 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You candidate question to my arbitration nomination could have probably been better answered on my talk. I know you disagreed with my use of the tools, and made a bad faith assumption. You attempt to bring that dispute to my nomination subpage appears inappropriate. Regards, Mercury 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Both were yes or no questions. Cla68 ( talk) 01:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Then I'm an overachiever. Although I question the motivation, I've answered them nonetheless.

If you would like to discuss my use of the administrative tools, please open up a thread on my talk in open discussion. I think you will find I'm more than willing to talk about it. I'm approachable. Mercury 02:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions. Cla68 ( talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think those questions are helpful. Respectfully request you withdraw them. Durova ^Charge! 02:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

One of those questions I asked of every candidate. The other obviously addresses the editor's opinion on when it is and isn't appropriate to use enforcement tools by using a personal, recent example. This is especially important because of the higher level of formal (oversight) and referent authority that arbitrators carry. If other editors see those questions and decide that they aren't relevant, they'll disregard them. Cla68 ( talk) 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I have diffs which clearly indicate you have maintained an ongoing campaign of harassment against User:SlimVirgin. I'm going to make a formal request now that you cease this harassment. Thanks.-- MONGO ( talk) 04:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I think there's a disagreement here over an unresolved issue. There's an easy way to resolve it...simply point me to where SlimVirgin apologizes for (or at least explains) her unethical behavior and promises not to repeat it. That would end it as far as I'm concerned. Cla68 ( talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid you have me at a quandary...I fail to see what she has done...certainly in recent years, that is unethical.-- MONGO ( talk) 09:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think we're going to come to an agreement here, but I'll leave it alone for now. Cla68 ( talk) 10:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You have a right to your point of view, but you do not have a right to make this website a hostile place for others just because you have an issue that is most arguably well behind us. You can get rid of the grudge or allow it to consume you...up to you.-- MONGO ( talk) 10:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It'll probably help me to leave it alone if I get left alone. Do you understand what I mean by that? Cla68 ( talk) 11:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes and I am sorry to bother you about it, but I simply think that this ongoing crusade blemishes your otherwise excellent article work. Best wishes.-- MONGO ( talk) 11:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

No..I am acting on my own. I have, as I mentioned, seen too many postings by you regarding SlimVirgin and I was only trying to get you refocused away from long dead issues so that you can resume article writing. Anyway, have a good one.-- MONGO ( talk) 08:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Considering your obvious familiarity with SlimVirigin and the information already provided at the top of the thread, its very hard to interpret this edit as anything other than a continuation of the campaign MONGO mentions. It certainly doesn't strike me as "leaving it alone for now". Please let it go. Rockpocke t 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I watch the noticeboard pages and when I see a discussion that appears to be about a subject that apparently can't fully be discussed, it makes me curious. Especially in light of recent revelations of a lot of secret machinations happening off-wiki that affect actions on-wiki. What does this have to do with what was discussed above? Now I'm really curious. If you say, though, that it is SlimVirgin related, I'll let it go, but I'm still curious. Cla68 ( talk) 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That is just creepy my friend. Let's not play sematic games...I think you need to stop trolling on this issue and save what credibility you have achieved via the FA work you have done. Don't overshadow all that with this ongoing silliness.-- MONGO ( talk) 04:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Stop the secrets and lies. The Durova case should have served as a final warning to those involved to knock it off. Cla68 ( talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I haven't lied to you...please do explain how I have. What secrets...you think I'm some sort of point man...that I am authorized by the "CABAL"? Hardly...as if you hadn't noticed..the cabal desysopped me...but I have never gone around on some neverending crusade to harass another editor as you are doing now. It is simply ugly, and tarnishes all the rest of your excellent work.-- MONGO ( talk) 07:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That wasn't directed at you, it was directed at whatever the situation is around that city in Canada article. If someone had allowed the article to be created, and then just watched it and reverted any trolling that happened to it, there wouldn't have been a problem. But, instead, it looks like there's all these attempts to keep the article from being created, attempts to delete it, and so on while trying to conceal whatever the reason is for doing that. That's what I'm talking about. People shouldn't be so scared to actually discuss things or so sensitive to keep things that they think are dangerous from happening, like looking for Wikipedia Review sleeper agents or searching for socks of banned users. Cla68 ( talk) 07:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

But there's a red under every bed! *Dan T.* ( talk) 10:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I hope that isn't free range sarcasm you're displaying there mister. If it is, our two security agencies [19] [20] might not appreciate your attitude. Cla68 ( talk) 13:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I dunno...looks to me that if there is a Red Scare going on here, it's being orchestrated by the very same people that claim there is a Red Scare [21]...starting to remind me of a few scenes from the movie Marathon Man (film)-- MONGO ( talk) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That's a good point. If the members of those groups are that willing to hang one of their own out to dry, what would they be willing to do to those of us who aren't on "their team"? Cla68 ( talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

... here. I don't know if it's significant, but I thought this seemed a bit contrived at the time. Maybe I'm wrong. sNkrSnee |  ¿qué? 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

"'I believe that Jimbo's credibility has been greatly damaged because of his open support for these people,' says Charles Ainsworth."

Open support for which people?

-- Jimbo Wales 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The people involved in those secret email lists. In addition to your comments in the ANI thread and on Giano's talk page in which you appeared to criticize Giano much more harshly than Durova, there are also these comments on the Wikien board: [22], [23], [24] that show your support. Do you want some names? SlimVirgin organized and administered the CyberStalking list, and Moreschi and Krimpet have pointed out that she was active in discussions on that list in spite of her claims that she wasn't. JzG has stated that he was involved in that list and also organized and administered the "investigations" list. For other names, all you need to do is look at discussions, threads, RfCs, and RfAs where SlimVirgin, Durova, Jayjg, and/or JzG have gotten involved and suddenly 10 to 20 other editors, mostly admins, have suddenly appeared within a few hours, but often within minutes, of each other to support whatever cause or issue that any of those four have taken a stand on. Cla68 ( talk) 23:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Why on earth would any of that damage my reputation? I have no idea where or when Slim Virgin claimed not to be active in discussions on that list, can you prove this astounding charge? Slim Virgin was by any reasonable account one of the primary participants in the list, and no wonder, since she has been the victim of really astounding stalking up to and including published nonsense that she is a spy!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Cla, please check what was said. I said I was never an active participant in the investigations list, which was created by others to move discussions about sockpuppetry away from the cyberstalking list. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Here you go [25]. SlimVirgin states that she posted "once" to that list, and Moreschi then points out that she is straight-up lying. SlimVirgin then amends her statement [26] saying that she may have participated in a "technical" discussion and that this was the "extent" of her involvement. Krimpet points out that this is also a lie [27].

I'll assert plainly here that SlimVirgin has an established record of having problems with the truth and others know this. Doc Glasgow just pointed out another incident of lying by her in a chat room discussion you recently participated in. This is why it damages your reputation to support "these people". As obvious as these issues are, I wonder how you couldn't be aware of them. Cla68 ( talk) 02:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Cla68, this is really important, so I am bolding it. Do you acknowledge the confusion here? SlimVirgin did not lie at all here as far as I can see, and you owe her an apology on this point. She talked about the wpinvestigations mailing list, which she did not at all or only barely participated in, not about the cyberstalking list, where she was and is a very active participant. Please acknowledge your mistake.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You're right, she was talking about the investigations list, so I apologize to SlimVirgin for stating that she was talking about the Cyberstalking list. But, Moreschi did catch her in a lie about the extent of her involvement in the investigations list and Krimpet stated that SlimVirgin hasn't been truthful about what really went on on the Cyberstalking list, which that link to Allison's page confirms. Someone has pointed out to me that there have probably been other victims of harrassment on Wikipedia that didn't know about that list that would have been interested in participating but couldn't, because it wasn't advertised anywhere. If the list was used for victims of harrassment, it seems that it was only open to a select few of them. And it also appears that it was used for other purposes, such as Durova's sleuthing seminars and other vitriol against good faith editors. Cla68 ( talk) 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

SlimVirgin would most likely agree with Alison's summary. There is no question that the list has been noisy and at times a place for people to vent steam. That's very far from the characterization you have been making of a secret list for the purpose of cabalism or whatever. Durova posted only that one message there of the "cybersleuthing seminar type" and I believe it got no response at all. It's a mailing list. You say that Moreschi "did catch her in a lie"... that is a very strong statement, can you point me to the proof of it?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Remember the line from Durova's email, "They don't know that this list exists"? Krimpet's statement supports that the list was used for much more than talking about harrassment. Now, the second link I provided above shows that SlimVirgin had to amend her first statement from "one post" to "eight times" to the investigations list. Perhaps not a big lie, but a lie. Anyway, are you asking for more evidence that she has ever lied? Cla68 ( talk) 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You may want to review WP:NPA. Why do you assume that "one post" versus "eight times" constitutes a lie, rather than an error. I was not and am not a member of the investigations list, but I can easily imagine it being quite easy to misremember the exact participation on a list. I am happy to let SlimVirgin answer for herself, but on the other hand, I can hardly blame her if she just wants to ignore you... the assumption of bad faith and unwillingness to engage her in a sincere dialog in an attempt to understand strikes me as something you might want to drop. Remember, assumption of bad faith is exactly what got Durova going down the wrong path. Don't follow.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't mean this sarcastically, but did I answer your original question? Cla68 ( talk) 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Not really, no. It seems that you are continuing to assume bad faith in a completely unfair way. Do you have any additional factual questions? It might help you to understand how far off track you have gotten here.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Cla, your attack on SV is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Please stop attacking your fellow editors, or you will lose the ability to edit on this site. Thanks, Crum375 ( talk) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Cla, it just isn't reasonable to jump straight to the conclusion that a person is lying. These are the facts, and there's no point in having a discussion unless it's based on facts:

I am a regular participant in the cyberstalking list. I was subscribed to the investigations list on or around November 10 without being asked whether I wanted to be on it (and I unsubscribed on or around November 26). My memory when I wrote to wikiEN-l was that I'd posted to the investigations list once or thereabouts. Then I looked through my e-mail archives and found eight posts I'd forgotten about, where I'd contributed to a thread about headers in e-mails. So I posted an immediate correction to wikiEN-l. Between my first and second post, Moreschi had already implied that I was lying. I didn't see his post at the time because I wasn't subscribed to wikiEN-l, and indeed my own posts were taking some time to arrive because I was having to ask David Gerard to forward them for me. But really, whether it's one post or eight, the point is that I was subscribed for only around 16 days, and I participated every little during that time. In future, please assume bad memory or confusion or misunderstanding when you see inconsistencies, at least to begin with, instead of immediately assuming that a person is lying. As for your other claim, I do not have "an established record of having problems with the truth": that really is a serious and unjustified slur. Please tell me what Doc Glasgow is supposed to have said so I can respond to it; otherwise, it's left hanging on this page as an attack I can't defend myself against. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You say you were only subscribed for 16 days, and honestly cannot see how amending - after challenged - "only a single post" to "an average of a post every second day for the duration" might seem even a little disingenuous? Achromatic ( talk) 05:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

This one really, really bothered me, especially the drama comment. [28] 75.65.91.142 ( talk) 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The very idea that there were "secret email lists" is absurd. The rest of what follows from that assumption is mistaken.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 01:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Why were the lists invitation-only then? I would be interested in knowing about any actual stalking or harrassment going on, because some of the articles I edit are probably embarrassing to some very powerful people and institutions. But I wasn't aware of that forum because it was kept well-hidden, and since I became aware of it a week ago I requested admission and haven't heard anything back. User:Alison, an admin respected enough to be one of the few to recently be entrusted with Checkuser privileges, describes what really went on on that list here [29], and it exactly describes how that list was characterized in the Register article.

Now, you say the rest is mistaken, but, I could easily find several examples to support my assertion, because I observed them firsthand. Do you want to see them? Cla68 ( talk) 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Alison's comments do not match what The Register said very much at all. I am happy to explain to you the key differences if you are interested. I would love to have examples to support your assertion, but in the interests of minimizing on-wiki drama, please send them to me in email so I can review it privately.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Here's the quote from the Register I was referring to, "a rogue editor revealed that the site's top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power." Durova's email was actually the evidence that this was occurring on that list (remember she also said, "they don't know that this list exists"), Allison's post confirms that the list was being used to complain about other editors. Now, do you really need more evidence than that? Cla68 ( talk) 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

First, calling Giano, a widely respected if often difficult editor, a "rogue editor" is nonsense. Durova's email is not evidence for the list being secret, nor evidence for the list being used for a "crackdown on perceived threats to power". Both of those things are just astoundingly false. Durova's email is evidence that Durova wrote something up quite out of character for her and the list, and sent it. Nothing more, nothing else. Of course the list was being used to talk about problem editors, and editors who tend to have a knee jerk reaction in favor of "radical free speech" instead of our traditional policies of removing personal attacks and blocking people who engage in them. And, yes, people who are hurting sometimes say things about other people that are unfair, mistakes are made. None of those potential criticisms of the list in any way support the rampant paranoia of the Register piece.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you state with certainty, that that particular list was never used to canvass support for any issues under discussion anywhere on Wikipedia? Cla68 ( talk) 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I can state with absolute certainty that the cyberstalking list was and is absolutely used to discuss proposals for change to Wikipedia in order to deal with the very difficult issue of cyberstalking. This includes people discussing things like possible policy changes, and other people saying that those policy changes are unworkable, or unwise. In short, like every discussion I have ever seen of Wikipedians in any place, for example, private meetups, public mailing lists, public irc channels, private irc channels, coffeeshops, wiki workshops, etc., the list absolutely was used to canvass support for issues under discussion in Wikipedia. I can't imagine that anyone could imagine that any discussion could be otherwise.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The list was never a secret. It's just a private list with a closed membership. People who've been victims of cyberstalking or serious harassment because of their participation in Wikipedia are invited, as are others who've expressed an interest in finding ways to deal with it. The discussions are often very personal, with victims explaining what happened to them and what the harassment made them feel like. Alison was a member for only a very brief period — from memory, it was just over a week, though I'd have to check that. We go through periods where mostly one thing is discussed, then we change to something else, so you need to have been a member for some time to get an overall picture. The reason for the privacy is so that victims have a safe place to discuss what happened to them. For obvious reasons, no support group with an open membership could offer this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Being familiar with the stalking and trolling that eminates from Wikipedia Review, I must say that I am certainly sympathetic to the creation of a private discussion board to counter-act it. That said, I am deeply concerned that we are allowing paranoia to take over the upper echelons of the Wikipedia Community. Some of the arguments I have seen concerning BADSITES and related matters coming from respected, established admins (and even ArbCom members) are honestly quite unbelievable. And now this. Frankly, it seems that Giano called a spade a spade and was punished becuase of it. The fact that the establishment (including Jimbo) came down on him so harshly unfortunately leaves egg on the face of the entire Wikipedia project. Of course what's done is done, and it seems most everyone is in agreement that the whole thing was an over-reaction and blown out of proportion. The only thing we can do now is ask how do we keep this rampant paranoia from getting out of hand? Clearly much of it is justified, but that doesn't change the fact that it is hurting Wikipedia. Kaldari ( talk) 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The purpose of the email list was not about Wikipedia Review, nor about "counter-acting" it. The purpose of the email list was to allow cyberstalking victims a safe place with my support to talk about their pain, to talk about what happened to them, and to begin to think about how Wikipedia might change for the better. Of course some of that discussion would naturally mention WR and also mention people who have been supportive of the "radical free speech" culture that allows bad behavior to thrive. There is nothing paranoid about that. I have never supported WP:BADSITES as it was written and rejected, and indeed said so publicly. But we do need to grapple in a mature way with the serious issue of people making hurtful attacks off-site that would get people banned on-site. Giano got in trouble with a lot of people because he made a huge drama out of something that need not have been a drama. Rather than violating a basic rule of civility by posting a private email publicly, he could have forwarded it to the ArbCom and/or me for review. And if we refused to do anything about it, or if there was any kind of "coverup" of Durova's errors, then and ONLY THEN, he might be justified in going public as a "whistleblower". But as it is, he should not be thought of as a brave whistleblower in the face of repression and paranoia, but rather as someone who made a pretty serious error of judgment in what was already a difficult situation. (A bad block, an admin apologizing, ArbCom investigating, and people freaking out.)

The first step in eliminating rampant paranoia, I think, is to step back and take a look at where the paranoia really lies. We have all this stuff about "secret mailing lists", facts be damned. We have this idea that some secret top cabal is orchestrating whatever whatever. When what we really have is a lot of people freaking out over routine errors that could be solved with a bit of good faith and loving discussion. I really strongly support that people should relax and get over the paranoia driven by various trolling conspiracy theories...-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

When Giano posted the email ArbCom wasn't, to anyone's knowledge, doing anything at all, let alone "investigating". The only action to that point which carried any vestige of authority was your statement that "a 75 minute block...is hardly worth all that drama." Far from indicating that our community leadership is attending to the problem you basically indicated that you felt the problem was solved and that we should stop talking about it. Of course you are welcome to have an personal opinion on the issue, but I think many people regarded your statement as dismissive of any concerns that the situation wasn't really resolved. The point is, I think you need to be more careful about making "pronouncements from on high" in your leadership role. Because for you to say that Giano should have brought the issue to you for review, when you had already made a prominent statement downplaying the seriousness of the issue, strikes me as a bit unreasonable: you can't expect people to see you as a neutral party when you've already taken a position. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Harassment can be serious business; real-life stalking always is. While I support the idea of Wikipedia developing an official program for victims of Wikipedia-related harassment and cyberstalking (which I can attest personally does occur), I am concerned that Wikipedia needs to know its limits in this matter. Some sympathy and practical assistance is at the top of the list. Consideration needs to be given to whether or not the Foundation will release the collected information on the alleged harasser/stalker to police at the request of the victim; as the policy is a Foundation one, there may be value in discussing a comprehensive response process with other projects.

I will also add that I am somewhat concerned that, while the members of this group include individuals who have experienced stalking and real-life harassment, it is unlikely that any of them have any training in the skills required to assist victims most effectively. Support groups are good, but they are usually led by professionals or at minimum well trained volunteers. Risker ( talk) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with your concern, and it is important to understand that this was an ad hoc spontaneous email group formed by a group of people who were hurting. A big part of what came out of it was exactly what you are saying: we contacted a professional and got some first advice, we formed a task force led by a psychologist to work on proposals, etc. This is an ongoing work in progress of course. And it is not being helped, sadly, by the rampant paranoia.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, geez, Jimbo...thanks for telling us NOW. There was no way that this could have been mentioned on-wiki any earlier? You make it sound as though this planning has been going on for months. Instead of giving people hope and showing that this was an identified problem that was being taken seriously, the silence has been deafening. Risker ( talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I have talked about it openly for a long time. I am not sure what piece of what I just said was new for you.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Where exactly have you said on-wiki that you/the Foundation were establishing a professionally developed program to address Wikipedia-related harassment and stalking? Was there something from the Foundation Board that got posted there and never disseminated to Wikipedians? Something in the Signpost? And irrespective of how this information was or was not disseminated to the community, what does this program entail - big picture, I understand that details may not be finalized. Risker ( talk) 04:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't even say that now, I am sorry if this is unclear. I think we will move in that direction in the near future, but for now, there is just what I said above... I would consider this the first step in a process. What does the program entail? No clue, details are not even really started, much less finalized. This is not a cabal list that is going to hand down policy to us out of the blue, this is a discussion group to get ideas. Anyone can start a similar group, or join any of the multiple places that similar discussions are being carried out everywhere on the wiki. :-) We can start talking about proposals right here if you like.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 06:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

As pointed out on the wikipedia mail list by David G, http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html has some useful insights into where the Wikipedia community has been and clues about where it should go. "Any group of people of whatever nature coming together for any length of time, for any purpose, will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. [...] 'structurelessness' does not prevent the formation of informal structures, but only formal ones. [...] The rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is curtailed by those who know the rules, as long as the structure of the group is informal. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware. [...] It is this informal structure, particularly in unstructured groups, which forms the basis for elites. [...] Elites are not conspiracies. Seldom does a small group of people get together and try to take over a larger group for its own ends. Elites are nothing more and nothing less than a group of friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities. [...] In a structured group, two or more such friendship networks usually compete with each other for formal power. This is often the healthiest situation. The other members are in a position to arbitrate between the two competitors for power and thus are able to make demands of the group to whom they give their temporary allegiance. [...] there are some principles we can keep in mind that are essential to democratic structuring and are politically effective also: 1 Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. [...] 2 Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to all those who selected them. [...] 3 Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. [...] 4 Rotation of tasks among individuals. [...] 5 Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. [...] 6 Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. [...] 7 Equal access to resources needed by the group. [...] When these principles are applied, they ensure that whatever structures are developed by different movement groups will be controlled by and be responsible to the group. The group of people in positions of authority will be diffuse, flexible, open and temporary. They will not be in such an easy position to institutionalise their power because ultimate decisions will be made by the group at large. The group will have the power to determine who shall exercise authority within it." WAS 4.250 ( talk) 09:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Clarification Since Cla has said that I "pointed out" SlimVirgin was lying, I'd like to be clear. I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of lying, and I rather resent being misrepresented. Slim made accusations about arbcom members leaking. I have no idea whether they are true or not. My comlaint, which Slim has graciously accepted, is that she should not have publicly implied that JamesF leaked, and that she disbelieved his assurances, without providing evidence. She should have discussed the matter privately with James and if dissatisfied gone to Jimbo, Arbcom, of the foundation. People should not make unsubstantiated allegation. And people should not accuse others of lying, or of calling people liars. Some of my own talk has been careless and open to misunderstanding, and for that I apologise to all parties. But, again, I have no reason to believe that Slim is lying.-- Doc^g 09:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Your words were, "jwales: you really /should/ review this vile thread. In which JamesF is accused of being a liar by slimvirgin. The thread is blatantly libellous and involves senior wikipedians. But make up your own mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...little_footnote". Now, I interpreted the word "libel" as lying. I just looked it up the word libel, and it doesn't quite mean lying, although it's close [30]. So, I apologize for mischaracterizing your remarks and will be more careful in future. Cla68 ( talk) 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

OK. My words on IRC were fastly typed and badly phrased - sorry. It's best not to use IRC transcripts to understand what someone is saying - you could have asked me. What I meant to say is that very serious allegations were being made, which *if* untrue could amount to defamation. The "vileness" was in the heated tempers and inappropriate remarks being made by a number of users in that thread. That's what I did say on the talk page of the thread in question. Perhaps, next time ask me for clarification. Sorry if my words caused false impression - I offer an apology to you and to SlimVirgin. My punishment for loose talk will be a self-imposed ban from #wikipedia.-- Doc^g 13:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You have said that I "pointed out" SlimVirgin was lying, so I'd like to be clear. I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of lying, and I'm sorry of my careless comments on IRC have led you to that conclusion. Slim made accusations about arbcom members leaking. I have no idea whether they are true or not. My complaint, which Slim has graciously accepted, is that she should not have publicly implied that JamesF leaked, and that she disbelieved his assurances, without providing evidence. She should have discussed the matter privately with James and if dissatisfied gone to Jimbo, Arbcom, of the foundation. People should not make unsubstantiated allegation. And people should not accuse others of lying, or of calling people liars. Some of my own talk has been careless and open to misunderstanding, and for that I apologise to all parties. But, again, I have no reason to believe that Slim is lying. You should not make that allegation unless you can provide evidence.-- Doc^g 09:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Your words were, "jwales: you really /should/ review this vile thread. In which JamesF is accused of being a liar by slimvirgin. The thread is blatantly libellous and involves senior wikipedians. But make up your own mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...little_footnote". Now, I interpreted the word "libel" as lying. I just looked it up the word libel, and it doesn't quite mean lying, although it's close [31]. So, I apologize for mischaracterizing your remarks. I'll post this to Jimbo's talk page also to make sure there's no misunderstanding of exactly what you said. Cla68 ( talk) 12:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Replied on my talk page.-- Doc^g 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. I can be awfully untidy at times. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Can I ask that you return to this comment and either expand or redact? As it is, it doesn't add any information as to why you think she should knock it off.
CygnetSaIad ( talk) 04:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll delete it. A message meant just for her should be left on her talk page, not in a public forum. Cla68 ( talk) 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Your comment on Viridae's talk page about being reverted (rightly, I'll add) at Doc's talk was simply wilfully encouraging disruption. Brandt is banned, as you both know. When banned users avoid their block to post to Wikipedia, the correct response is to remove the comment and not hinder others doing that and certainly not to encourage them to continue. There's a limit to how much disruption via enabling banned troublemakers the community is willing to put up with. Do not continue to enable or help others enable banned editors to ignore their bans and continue to disrupt Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 04:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I made no qualitative judgement nor any recommendation to Viridae on the reversion by CBerlet. It was just a notification of what had occurred. Viridae is an admin that I respect, so I was letting him know that someone had reverted an action that he had taken. So, since you didn't WP:AGF with me, I guess I'll return the favor...are you looking for flimsy reasons to add gratuitous warnings to my userpage? Cla68 ( talk) 06:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Ironic that you should have asked me about that last night. This diff happened about 3 hours later, followed by Talk:Animal_testing#Editing. I'm not expecting you to do anything abut it, SV is well-known for this, but the timing was too good not to mention. All the best Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Unbelievable. I guess we're supposed to feel fortunate that she deigns to allow us to edit her wiki. Cla68 ( talk) 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there! You said that "There have been a couple of recalls recently, and I'll mention names if anyone wants me to". I would appreciate it if you would add such names to Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests, and add a brief explanation of the nature of the request, and what happened (did they talk it out, did the admin ignore it, did he claim the requester didn't "qualify", etc). Thanks, >Radiant< 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm really busy today but I'll try to get to it as soon as I can. Cla68 ( talk) 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

"so I don't think it's inappropriate for Giano to bring it up here." Neither do I. Rather, it is the way he brought it up that I believe is problematic. I hope you can understand my sentiments. Cheers — Cronholm ¹⁴⁴ 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

No worries. Cla68 ( talk) 03:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Prompted by this edit of yours: Please explain your beef with the article on its talk page. Thanks. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You lamented that I did not identify individual parties. Wikipedia talk:No original research#Discussed and undiscussed edits lays out a picture-perfect example of those "I say so"/revert tactics, though obviously directed against myself instead of COGDEN. If I find the time, I will dig up further refs and make an additional comment in the RfC. Vassyana ( talk) 14:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd pitch in where I can (especially given JzG's latest response), but I just don't have the juice to be the driving force behind the RfC. I think DH might be willing, though. Mr Which ??? 01:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply

An RfC of this magnitude will be a lot of work because of the amount of evidence to be collected, and the intense and tremendous response that it might attract. That's why we would need several people to help out. Cla68 ( talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I could help out a bit. But I don't want to become the focus of the thing. As long as you and a couple of others would be willing to run point, I'd be willing to help out. Mr Which ??? 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, if a couple more people agree to join in, and at least one other person can legitimately certify it, we can proceed. Cla68 ( talk) 01:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply

(copied from my talk page)

I am not going to be able to devote much time to Wikipedia until January because of family commitments - and will be somewhat limited after that for other reasons. There is a record of some of my interactions with Guy in my archives, which had to do with a thread at ANI. I also tried talking to him on his talk page, but I know he blanked that (there were other editors in the conversation too). DuncanHill ( talk) 01:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand. It may be we'll need to wait on this until after the holiday season. Your interactions with JzG should still be there, buried in the page history because, fortunately, Jayjg's misuse of the oversight function to hide abuse by his friends appears to have ended. Cla68 ( talk) 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply

If you wait until after Friday, I'll help you, if no one else will. Mr Which ??? 01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I appreciate that. It may be better to wait until DuncanHill and others are available to help out. Cla68 ( talk) 01:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply

given your prior comments, the talk page discussion at Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation may interest you.-- 69.203.81.71 ( talk) 01:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I had seen the link you mentioned, and I had already responded. In short, it had nothing to do with Israel/Palestine articles. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

There's no more reason for Jayjg to be a party than you or me. Please don't add parties after the request has been accepted. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I added him name before the case opened. Anyway, I looked at some more directly related articles and didn't take long at all to find one with his name in the recent history and talk page debate. I linked it on your userpage. The clerk can remove his name if he sees fit and I won't readd it in that case. Cla68 ( talk) 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I have removed Jayjg's name from the case for now, since there seemed little consensus to it and a quick look saw no reason to include him. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

From what I read on the arbitration request for this case, and in some discussion since, I think you're going to see some evidence of Jayjg's involvement. If not, then I was wrong. Cla68 ( talk) 01:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I didn't think it was the arbitrators' job to decide who to name as being parties - only who to sanction. The instructions at WP:RFAr#Requesting arbitration state "Fill in the names of the involved parties" and are clearly directed at the initiating parties, not the arbitrators or clerks. There's no provision for third parties to remove names (unless, I suppose, it's a really frivolous listing - which this plainly is not). -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

One question Matthew, is Jayjg still on the ArbCom's private mailing list? Cla68 ( talk) 01:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Cla, for your supportive contributions during this unpleasant incident; I am most grateful and appreciative. Kindest regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Not sure if you know, but it also turned out that some sockpuppets were involved in my wonderful RfA - User:Yeshivish was blocked a month or two after...

Anyway, I really hope that this RfAr will be able to do something. I felt that the strength of the oppose vote in my RfA handicapped me slightly from dealing with the pro-Israel lot, as were I to block any of them, then they've got a ready made excuse to decry my actions. Hopefully if there are some concrete findings and behavioural directives for the problematic editors I'll actually be able to do my duty properly in the future...

пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed no one had posted a follow-up to Alison's note at David's talk page. It's possible he hasn't logged on since the AN thread heated up. Probably we've all been surprised occasionally to see a flareup after we took a day off. Let's assume good faith. I've urged him to drop by the noticeboard as soon as he's back online. Durova ^Charge! 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I would be surprised if Gerard comments on the issue. The entire affair has been a huge black eye for him, Jimbo, the project, and a great many other editors, me and you included. I don't believe the entire truth of the matter has come out yet. Hopefully it will eventually for the sake of all concerned. Cla68 ( talk) 14:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• I've started drafting an RfC on JzG here. Cla68 ( talk) 06:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• And another RfC to chronicle the Weiss/Bagley dispute in Wikipedia here. Cla68 ( talk) 03:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note, the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case makes this one basically moot so I'm probably going to request that it be deleted soon. Cla68 ( talk) 00:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Re: this - if there's a desire, I might be able to push through a Japanese translation for that page (and get someone who speaks it to handle the tickets). Raul654 ( talk) 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure! They are fairly major celebrities in Japan and potentially so elsewhere so I think it would be of benefit to do as you suggest. Cla68 ( talk) 01:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland‎ beat you to it ;) SirFozzie ( talk) 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This only covers one aspect of the issue. The RfC I was thinking of would detail the entire saga- who did what and when from beginning to end, including all substantially involved editors and admins. But, I think Durova's RfC is an appropriate action. Cla68 ( talk) 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please don't goad JzG ^[32] -- it doesn't help things.

This is just an observation and a request, not a "warning" or a rebuke. -- A. B. ^(talk) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Gotcha. Cla68 ( talk) 04:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't you think that calling for WB to be allowed to return for this period as well as asking for accountability for actions taken some time ago is pushing it in terms of what will be permitted just a little? Relata refero ( talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Could be, but I think that full and open discussion of all aspects of the issue by everyone reasonably involved and willing to do so should be allowed. We want to try to completely resolve the matter, leaving no hanging issues. Cla68 ( talk) 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I bet my block is influential. I will not have any involvement in the RFC. MessedRocker ( talk) ( write these articles) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this source, I hadn't seen that one. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 06:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/ e 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

In interest of avoiding political entanglements, etc. I must respectfully decline any and all involvement in the RfC. I don't quite understand how the politics of wikipedia work, and I'm more interested in spending my time improving the quality of articles anyway. I don't quite know what an RfC is, to tell you the truth. Pygmypony ( talk) 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla, please stop posting on SV's page, or otherwise harassing or stalking her, or anyone else. Crum375 ( talk) 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Asking an admin to explain why they made a personal attack against you is considered "harassment"? What a strange Wiki world we live in! But be sure you're not the only one to have been called a "conspiracy theorist" by Slim. See [33] for example. The diff I posted to her talk page, asking for an apology for that and another edit she made implying that I was liar has since been deleted [34] in the "cleaning up" of her talk page. There was no response, or apology either. One can only conclude that here at Wikipedia " some pigs are more equal than others". Unfortunately, I have no advice for you. Only the deepest of sympathies, which I thought I would share. Tiamut ^talk 13:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Asking SlimVirgin to be accountable for her actions isn't harrassment. In fact, I have to ask why you feel the need to try to "protect" her from accountability with weak attempts at intimidation? Can she not defend herself? Or, because she has no defense she needs to rely on others who apparently have nothing better to do? Cla68 ( talk) 14:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You're ongoing stalking of Slim is nullifying all the terrific FA's you have created. Cease and desist from this ongoing disruption please....please get back to article writing, which is by far your forte here and is much appreciated.-- MONGO 14:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

By the above-cited standards, aren't Crum and MONGO "harassing" Cla68? Once you define this term so loosely, any attempt at communication, especially in a critical vein, might apply. *Dan T.* ( talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Instead of "piling on" to tell a user that they're not to ask what are valid questions of another user, perhaps you could consider how your actions might be considered in the same light? Achromatic ( talk) 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I should just keep my nose out of it, but an accusation of stalking is a little over the top. It is an emotionally charged word that brings with it ton of creepy suggestions. Maybe there is a better word than stalking to express whatever one is trying to express. Stalking refers to a criminal offense in most areas; it is a bad word to describe the actions of a person who is offended and civilly (if not repeatedly) trying to receive feedback from a person he has a dispute with. daveh4h 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla68, its like this. Your efforts to help wikipedia are very very appreciated. But everyone is different. Different things upset different people. British and American tastes in which words are fighting words is an example. Using the word "niggardly" around ignorant people is an example. Slimvirgin is an asset to wikipedia just as you are. What upsets her is different than what upsets you. Please accommodate our fellow human beings as much as you can when it comes to their individual sensitivities. Thank you. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Asking an admin to explain why they made a personal attack against you is considered "harassment"? What a strange Wiki world we live in! Newbyguesses - Talk 10:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, that is how the game is played. Provoke a personal attack, then claim a personal attack was made, and when you get enough then you begin an escalation pattern of blocks that make them angry enough to warrant further longer blocks. The first person to claim they were attacked is the winner in this game. Cla68 won. Let it go. Crum375 is playing the "I see your personal attack and I raise you a stalking, your turn" game. He and Slim love these games; they are such fun people. Personally, I find these games lacking in challenge. "The best move is not to play. Care for a nice game of chess?" WAS 4.250 ( talk) 10:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It's not a question of differing sensibilities, British v. American English, etc., just a familiar move in a game of strategy that Cla68 doesn't need to play. Cla68, you have a wide and well-deserved reputation for (a) prolific and first-rate article content, and (b) scrupulous and courageous fairness regarding these marginal COI/NPOV/clique dramas. And other editors have an equally wide and well-deserved reputation for vulgarly exploiting a politics of victimhood, and using a moral rhetoric (of "harassment," "stalking," and so on) so grossly and irresponsibly inflated as to be meaningless. It's like one of those poignantly devalued currencies where you've got four zeroes on a bill and it's still not enough for a sandwich. No one believes your accusers, Cla68, so don't let 'em rattle your cage.-- G-Dett ( talk) 12:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate everyone's well-spoken comments and advice and they are all well-taken. Cla68 ( talk) 12:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

May I say, Cla68, that myself never having been involved in any of these instances, I have no reason to want to get into a fight with the "big swingers". And I have admiration for the contributions of SlimVirgin, not all of them but much of them. However, the practices of those bullybrigades who conspire to mug the less-protected in dark alleys is deplorable, and they know who they are.

I expect to draw flak for that comment, but it is one thing to voluntarily contribute to Wikipedia, and quite another thing to find oneself endlessly confronted on talkpage after talkpage with this garbage and bullying, which at this time seems to reverbrate from *BADSITES*. I am a minor editor, nil interest in politics, but I dont like walking through spew to get to work. If, somehow, the *BADSITES* war, can be finished with, with all involved parties well and truly injured and retired from the fray, that may be the best possible outcome for WP. I will gladly wear some incidental abuse then (I am bound to anyway, even just for breathing).

These are my personal views, so if I offend anyone here, let me (NBG) know. User:Cla68 had nothing to do with this statement. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Apology from NBG - With the Arbcom case now openened, I realize that the intemperate language in my above post could be seen as not setting any kind of good example of civility, at a time when AGF and decorum will be of much benefit. I apologise for being het-up at the time of post, and will try to set a better example in future, or not stick my beak in at all. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not going to recuse from the case; long-standing arbcom precedent does not require us to be free of opinions about cases, but rather to recuse if we have an actual conflict of interest. I do not.

As always, I will examine the facts before us neutrally and without prejudice.

As to my opinions about Mr. Bagley - he is not a party to this arbitration in any case, as far as I can tell, so it is not very relevant. Yes, the case involves people with whom he has had long-standing disagreements, but that will not affect my judgment as to those people's actions.

Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't agree and I repeat my request that you recuse yourself. Cla68 ( talk) 00:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Asked here, about the precedent: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision#Procedural question on recusal. Lawrence § t/ e 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Mantanmoreland's troubling treatment.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is the most important section in the case. It's not so surprising when people lie or try to advantage themselves, but we must learn how this was allowed to continue for so long. Cool Hand Luke 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

"Appears to admin delete previous versions of the article along with the edit history".

These edits were subsequently oversighted. Consequentially, I have no idea what they were. Cool Hand Luke 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Clarification: Gary Weiss has been oversighted. Talk:Gary Weiss was only admin deleted, by SlimVirgin Five edits are deleted. Just from an IP and reversions. Were adding {{Notable Wikipedian|various sockpuppets|Weiss, Gary}} and comments that "everyone knows Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss." I have no idea what's missing from Gary Weiss, of course. Cool Hand Luke 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I hope you don't mind that I've corrected the points to bring them in line with the facts I'm aware of. I think I wasn't clear enough to begin with. [35] Cool Hand Luke 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks again. Cla68 ( talk) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Crum did indeed admin delete SlimVirgin's talk page. However, ElinorD subsequently convinced her to undelete some of the deleted history and divided the history into several archives. Your edit sits deleted at User talk:SlimVirgin/temp. The log looks like this:

• 02:55, 3 June 2007 (diff) . . SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) (3,670 bytes) (archiving)
• 02:53, 3 June 2007 (diff) . . SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) (27,826 bytes) (Reverted edits by Cla68 (talk) to last version by NathanLee)
• 02:52, 3 June 2007 (diff) . . Cla68 (Talk | contribs | block) (28,812 bytes) (comment on removal of RfC notification)

This is what you wrote:

==RfC on my actions==
I notice that you immediately removed my notification of the RfC I opened on myself from WP:ANI. That RfC is an attempt to document what happened and generate discussion among the community so we can hopefully put it in the past. Since administrators enforce policy I thought it was appropriate for them to read the RfC and ask questions or comment on it. As editors I believe we have the right to bring issues to the attention of the admin noticeboard, since it says in the heading for that forum, "any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here." If you feel that invitation doesn't apply to me, I'd like to know why. Also, since you were the initial and primary editor to voice the concerns over my conduct in my RfA, I especially encourage you to ask any questions or comment on the matter in the RfC. CLA 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Cool Hand Luke 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you Cla68 ( talk) 08:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Also note the comment for Crum375's history delete—"trolling." Cool Hand Luke 09:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you explain (if you get time) some things to me about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cla68. Do these processes close, or remain open for ever? There appear to be no posts since 01:53, 11 December 2007 Cla68 @Talk. Is there a "result", or has the "outcome" been satisfactory to you?

Is the Rfc closed, or could posts still be made there? Are you still bothered by the allegations which were made at the RFC, and repeated at your RFA? Was this offer ever made good on? Do not reply if you are too busy with the Arbcom. or other matters, or if you feel that commenting at this time is inappropriate. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Those are good questions and I'll give a full reply within the next couple of days. Cla68 ( talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay. That RfC is still open as far as I'm concerned. Editors are still free to add (or retract) their endorsements to any of the statements listed there. In fact, once the current, related ArbCom case is closed, I'm going to add a link to it and a brief intro in a section on the RfC's discussion page. As far as I know that offer you mention wasn't made good on.

If you look at the evidence I'm presenting in the related ArbCom case [36], you can see that I am still bothered by what occurred in my RfA. One of the purposes of the RfC was to document what happened as a future reference as well as so that I could learn from the experience and from analysis and comments provided by others. One of things that bothers me the most about the RfA was that an active participant there and in the RfC, an admin, knowingly and mendaciously lied, and has never been held adequately accountable for doing so. Cla68 ( talk) 09:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thankyou for your prompt reply. The question of a "result" is then moot, as the Rfc is still open, and I intend for the record to wait until you or other post there before making a contribution. It seems the purpose of an Rfc is to obtain Outside views; there have been a number of those to date in evidence, so that "outcome" has been achieved, but I cannot see anywhere there where you get answers to what seem reasonable requests to have evidence supplied, or accusations withdrawn. I will be following the Arbcom. case, though unlikey to post there (again;)? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding your comments on my Talk: page, you say I was " heavily involved at one point in the issue"; can you explain what you mean by that? Also, why would I have special insight into oversight actions, or be able to provide dates and times for them? Finally, based on this statement, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

On at least one point, I can take a wild stab in the dark: "able to provide dates and times" - "# Jayjg ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)", from Special:ListUsers/suppress. Wasn't that much of a stretch, was it? Achromatic ( talk) 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There are 30 people on that list; I'm not sure why Cla68 specifically approached me, rather than the 29 other names on the list, or suggested I would have special insight in this matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I heard somewhere that you oversighted material from the Gary Weiss article and associated talk page. If you didn't, please say so and I'll retract that "heavily involved" statement. If you weren't the one who did it, could you please identify the oversight editor(s) who did oversight the material? Cla68 ( talk) 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Interesting; where did you hear that? Also, you might have missed my earlier question, based on this statement, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia?" Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If you'll answer my question, I'll answer yours. Cla68 ( talk) 03:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Since I asked first, why don't you answer first? Specifically, "based on this statement, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia?" Then we'll move on to your questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Jayjg, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia? User: Dorftroffel 08:52,  February 20, 200 8

Cla68 is the person who took umbrage based on things posted off-Wikipedia - it is he who needs to answer. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

"Needs to answer"? You're asking him a question, and it's up to him whether he wants to reply or not. You're not the Holy Inquisition or anything, please don't act like you think you are. Dorftrottel ( ask) 18:37,  February 29, 2008

I didn't word that well, I meant that the question was only relevant for him. No need to jump down my throat. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

While looking over your evidence, I visited the page of your RfA where I stumbled upon User:Blutacker. I had "flagged" the account, saying "This is the user's sixth edit, and his second outside Daniel Brandt" Since the Brandt article is deleted, only an admin could evaluate those 4 edits. At any rate, it's very clear that the account is a sockpuppet and I tagged the user page with {{ Sockunknown}}. I'm not sure if this means anything at all (probably not), but I thought I'd notify you of this find. Blutacker btw is the German name for Akeldama. User: Dorftrottel 06:01,  February 18, 200 8

I'm not sure what to do about that. The account appears to have stopped editing. I guess a checkuser could be performed, but I don't know who it should be done on. Cla68 ( talk) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Same here, just thought it curious enough to drop you a line. User: Dorftrottel 13:42,  February 19, 200 8

I am rather good at thwacking sock puppets. If you go for RFA again, I will be watching, and this sort of thing won't happen again. Jehochman ^Talk 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate that. Cla68 ( talk) 02:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbcom case case At the current arbcom. case, here, user:mantanmoreland appears to be arguing that virtually every post to this case opposing their position is from a sock of Wordbomb!

Sockpuppeting

...Most of the contents of this page have been on the ASM website for well over a year. If Judd Bagley, Overstock's spokesman and operator of ASM, were not coordinating this, I am sure he would have a case for copyright infringement...(User:Mantanmoreland)

(DIFF?)

I may have misread, and I dont intend presenting evidence at this time, but if that is the same old argument, it is easily refuted. All known socks of WB are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb and none of them have posted to the arbcom. case, as far as i can see. FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

(further down) Look at

The editors who know Sami and I best, and are not necessarily friends of either of us, believe quite firmly that we are different people based on writing style and the positions we took, and didn't take, in 600-odd emails. (User:Mantanmoreland)

nbg/with respect, Mantan, it is not a matter of the editors who know you best, but of all the WPeditors, most of whom have never met you, your peers. FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Further:

I would ask, as a concerned observer, how does Cla68 answer this from User:Mantanmoreland --

Naked shorting is a subject that has received widespread news coverage, so naturally there are news articles cited. For most substantive points, the article relies on the SEC website.

user:mantanmoreland--He * Cla68* objects to this [158] perfectly proper edit by Samiharris, cutting the length of an overlong paragraph on the antisocialmedia.net smear campaign, correcting an inaccuracy that attributed an allegation to the wrong source.

How does Cla68 respond to this by Mantan?

That same edit also removed a notable journalist's comment:

'Bloomberg.com columnist Susan Antilla writes that the website attack on Weiss, "Is but the latest example of the public relations path Overstock and Bagley have taken to wage their bizarre battle against naked shorts."

(user:mantanmoreland)--The rest of his * Cla68's"evidence" relates to the raw deal he supposedly has gotten through much of his wiki-life, and has nothing to do with this arbitration.

nbg/with respect Mantan, it is for the arbitrators to decide what is to do with this arbitration, not yourself./nbg

That's what i would ask, if I were to haver evidence to present, i guess. Instead, I ask you FWIW, pardon I mean, FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

FYIGFDL-- my evidence, if I present it would be.. FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have done it now. — Newbyguesses - Talk 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I would like to register a mild objection to your evidence against me in the Mantanmoreland case. Here "Overstock abusers" was a quote from the previous comment; you will note please that I also said that editors who used such tactics were absolutely not welcome to edit Wikipedia, unless they are willing to leave that behind them when they put on their Wikipedia hat. Clearly, if Piperdown or someone like him was willing to edit other topics, leaving Overstock, MM and associated topics behind, we would not even know he was here. And here please note that my comments about naked short selling obviously apply to Wordbomb but that my comments about misogynistic and antisemitic edits refers to other stalkers of SlimVirgin and others, not to Bagley. Finally, you can call this a poison pill if you like, but it is a fact that the suspicion was raised by more than one checkuser, and by at least one non-checkuser admin, and was a matter of consultation among myself and other checkusers before I answered the request, so it seems reasonable to mention it; if only to give an answer to those users and admins who may remember Wordbomb also using proxies and wonder whether it was looked into. Thatcher 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, I think those are good points and I'm going to retract those statements and I apologize for making them. I don't think you should have said that about WordBomb and SamiHarris, but I'm going to retract it anyway. Cla68 ( talk) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

What are you removing someone else's evidence for? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Did I remove someone else's evidence? I thought I removed evidence from my section only. Cla68 ( talk) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You are right, my booboo. Sorry, Very rough case here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I wish this was undeleted because it has one of Mantanmoreland's most duplicitous statements. Anyhow, here's a deleted diff where he expands his initial comment: [37]. Admins would be able to see this:

• Keep Yes this is a "classic example." It is a classic example of an attack page in the guise of an AfD, and I think it is a little shocking that this AfD has not already been deleted. This is the continuation of a harassment campaign against Weiss, myself and specific admins that has been waged on and off-Wiki by sock/meatpuppets of User:WordBomb, on various venues off-Wiki, including anti-Wiki websites. Among the targets is this article, which has been semiprotected to prevent vandalism.

The claims of sockpuppetry by three unnamed editors (presumably myself and the two other editors who disagreed with Cla68 over the last 24 hrs.) are outrageous lies. So is the WP:VAIN assertion, which is rubbish, which is made in a link, now deleted, from a cockamamie anonymous website obviously maintained by banned editor and notorious troll User:WordBomb, who has been harassing myself and other editors via multiple sockpuppets as can be seen from his user page. I urge interested editors to view the actual edit history of this article, which is notable for its relative inactivity in recent weeks and for the utter lack of substance to Cla68's claims. -- Mantanmoreland 06:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for all your work. Cool Hand Luke 02:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for asking to have it undeleted. The link to it is in my evidence section, and the arbitrators should all be able to view it. If any non-administrators want to view it, I know where a copy of the AfD is kept off-wiki, and can refer them to it. Cla68 ( talk) 03:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I suggest you take a look at this proposed FoF of yours, where I've suggested an emendation based on a statement by dmcdevit. Of course, you might want to ask him additional questions, but it seems he would consider it a matter of courtesy to have some action taken asap. Relata refero ( talk) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If a third party, like one of the arbitrators, looks at what he deleted and tells me that he acted properly, then I'll retract it and apologize. Cla68 ( talk) 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

As an admin, I can tell you that the edits were oversighted. As I don't have oversight rights, I can't say whether or not it was done right. See Wikipedia:Oversight#Users with Oversight permissions for the list who may be able to tell. GRBerry 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15604&view=findpost&p=80617

Don't know if you have an account there, so he you are. Viridae ^Talk 11:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't have an account there, so please pass on my thanks to the members of the committee and the academy. Cla68 ( talk) 11:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you ready to try for adminship again? I saw what happened last time and thought it was a shame. Jehochman ^Talk 23:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Responded by email. Cla68 ( talk) 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding this, note the provision at WP:RFC that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." (Emphasis is in the original.) Just wanted to make sure you were aware since I've seen RFCs backfire. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla68 is helping Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 12:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have notified everyone in the tried and failed to resolve the dispute bit, as well as durova and dan tobias - the former because she was in that part but I'm not sure she will want to take part and the latter because he expressed interest. Viridae ^Talk 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the help. Cla68 ( talk) 11:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

As you know being part of that crowd, the discussion was started, restored and is being continued by several long running ax-grinders with Jimbo both on and off site. Transparently using 'concern' as a reason to air Jimbo's dirty laundry and create drama is by definition that is disruptive editing. For that reason alone it can and should be ended and archived. You want to discuss Jimbo's personal imbroglios? This isn't the place for it; do it offsite. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The cliqueism whereby NPOV is put aside to judge people and their ideas strictly based on which "crowd" they're part of is something I had hoped had been thoroughly discredited lately. *Dan T.* ( talk) 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This isn't the place to discuss it? Why isn't it? You don't seem to realize that the best way to put something to bed is to discuss it expeditiously and openly, not treat it like it's radioactive and relegate it to off-site forums or a private mailing list that only a few Wikipedians are allowed to or choose to belong to. Cla68 ( talk) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The credit for adding balance to that article in recent weeks goes to Msalt, Jayen466, Francis Schonken. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That may be but you deserve credit for helping make sure they had the opportunity to balance that article. That was some good work. Cla68 ( talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, some good work by Francis Schonken ( talk · contribs) especially, however much more work needs to be done to improve balance/neutrality on that article. Cirt ( talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't mean to take the wind out of your sails with my comment. The point I mean to make is, we're being told scope is limited because certain names and issues weren't added to the case. That makes sense on the face of it, but I have doubts when I think of the impact that adding my own name to the case had: going from there is no dispute to yes, but your dispute is beside the point. If that distracts from the main thrust of your statement then feel free to remove my comments from that subthread. Durova ^Charge! 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't have a problem with what you said. Cla68 ( talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi -- I'd like to see the sandbox(es) restored that were in use before the JzG2 RfC went live. Would you have a problem with that? A temporary restore would be ok too. Alternatively, I could ask an admin for a copy by email, but I'm also interested in the edit history. See also my request on Viridae's talk page here. Thanks. Avb 11:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Nope, no problem. Cla68 ( talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Restored. GRBerry 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks; I've checked the things I wanted to know. Avb 14:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Redeleted. GRBerry 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 23:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/ e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( talk) 02:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I've started a draft user conduct RfC here. Cla68 ( talk) 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You seem to really enjoy doing these. Am I on your list? Raymond Arritt ( talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

What list? If you want to see the main impetus for this one, review the recent Mantanmoreland ArbCom case, especially the evidence page. Cla68 ( talk) 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

please remove item 9 from the sandbox draft. i'm not a party to this matter. Anastrophe ( talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

done. Cla68 ( talk) 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not in interested in witch hunts. Your arguments seem too fragmented to be coherient. Sorry about the bad spelling;) Ceoil ( talk) 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This RfC is in its initial stages. Please keep it on your watchlist. I think you'll see as it develops that it isn't a witch hunt, but long overdue. Cla68 ( talk) 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Long overdue? Hunt? Please. Ceoil ( talk) 13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid this last comment is a little too subtle for me (It's 10:30 here in Japan and I'm not used to staying up very late). If you have specific and detailed feedback to give, please let me have it. Cla68 ( talk) 13:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry Cla, hit the 'hit' button instead of preview, and then went downstairs for coffey unaware of the devistation behind me. Eejit! Just to say I'm not awawre of most of your evidence, and so am uncomfurtible being 'named' or 'presented' in evidence. I do like your articles though, so I hope the above is not fatal. ? Ceoil ( talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't have any problem at all taking your name off of it [38]. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Cla68 ( talk) 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks Cla. The thing is, I behaved quite poorly during that episode, and I want to leave it in the past. I don't have a paticular openion on SV, I was more motivated in defence of SG. Speaking of which; I'm always impressed by what you offer to FAC, hope this discussion hasn't tained a friendship... I'm usually a nice guy, though I can be some fucking bitch at times. Ceoil ( talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for informing me of your draft. I'm not familiar with the episode described therein, though my own experiences with the editor in question are eerily reminescent. I'm not sure adding them would help though, since they took place a little more than a year ago. I do admire your tenacity in expecting that all editors, even "highly respected" admins, be held to the same standards. I'm skeptical however that anything at all will ever be done given the tendency to ignore such complaints dealing with this editor's conduct in the past. I will follow how things develop though and intervene with comments if appropriate. Good luck! Tiamut ^talk 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The edits seem to be there. [39] Sometimes edit histories are misplaced when a page is cut-and-paste moved. Most of the admin work I do is fixing those. In this case it all looks right to me. Cool Hand Luke 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see what you mean. It's only been recently that protections make an edit summary. They used to be silent. But you can see them on the logs. Crum did protect it. [40] Cool Hand Luke 04:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Not that recently though. This is also in the history. [41] Cool Hand Luke 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I got it now. Wrong year. Cla68 ( talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You're right, there's no "real objection", as long as you ignore all the people who object. In any event, please get a real consensus for this significant policy change before attempting to modify policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

What is the (notice, I said "the" not "your") "real" consensus? How many people? What percentage of project participants? Only established editors? If so, what's an established editor? Only admins? Please, tell me where it says what "the real" consensus is. I think the policy will be changed, because right now there is a discrepancy between Harassment and COI. Cla68 ( talk) 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

What percentage of project participants have supported your changes? As for the alleged "discrepancy", there is none. In any event, the COI behavioral guideline is advice for editors on how they should edit, not advice for others on how to out people they suspect have a COI, and it certainly doesn't trump the WP:BLOCK or WP:OVERSIGHT policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Check out the COI noticeboard where several threads currently out other editors, apparently without censure. If the harassment and block policies really trumped COI, then this wouldn't be going on on the COI noticeboard. By not doing anything about it, you and other admins have already set the precedent that outing for COI reasons is ok, whether it says so or not in the rest of the policies. Cla68 ( talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Which specific threads are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Here are a couple [42] [43]. Cla68 ( talk) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

In the first example, the userid appears to include a name. Regardless, it may be that some of the postings on the COI noticeboard are inappropriate. If so, that's an issue with the COI noticeboard, not WP:BLOCK, WP:OVERSIGHT, and WP:HARASSMENT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll collect more diffs/links if necessary, but it appears that we've been outing COI editors since the project was started. The policies need to be updated to reflect what's already, rightfully going on to maintain the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia. Cla68 ( talk) 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

No, there's no particular need to modify the existing policies, which are what maintain a reasonable working environment for our volunteer editors. Moreover, as explained, it's not our COI policy that "maintain[s] the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia", it's the quality of the articles and the sources used, strict adherence to the core content policies, and a welcoming environment for editors. Indeed, if all editors adhered strictly to the core content policies then COI would be irrelevant. WP:COI is a guideline intended to help editors recognize when they might have difficulties adhering to the core content policies, not a manual for others to out editors they suspect have a conflict of interest. Your puffing up the COI guideline as the savior of Wikipedia's "integrity and credibility" seems to me to be a case of exaggerating the guideline's impact and intent, and devaluing far more important policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You honestly feel that I'm exaggerating the importance of the COI guideline? Have you been paying attention to Wikipedia-related news lately? One of the major reasons the Jimbo/Marsden/Merkey story was so noticed was because of the allegations that Jimbo might have violated COI by influencing the bio article of his girlfriend and the bio of Merkey for money for the Foundation. I would think that you would be very concerned about allegations of COI by our editors, because, if true, it could call into question the credibility of large numbers of articles in our project and the good faith of some of our most active editors. In fact, after our conversations here and at WP:AN and the COI Noticeboard, I'm now fairly sure that the COI guideline needs to be upgraded to policy status, because, our credibility does depend to a great deal on investigations of and resolving COI allegations. Cla68 ( talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I think Coppertwig and Calton put it better than I could have. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Coppertwig's reply was helpful, but Calton calling a Register reporter a "whackjob" was, unfortunately, counterproductive. Cla68 ( talk) 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not aware of the Prem Rawat article receiving any significant coverage in any reputable press, and the "discrepancy" you claim exists is illusory at best. And we need to be even more careful not to change policies in pursuit of agendas that have nothing whatsoever to do with the policies themselves. And Calton's comments regarding a "solution-in-search-of-a-problem", among others, were spot-on. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla68...once again, I remind myself of your excellent FA work and thank you for those articles. However, I see you are working on another potential Rfc here...what exactly is the problem between you and Slim? I would like to once again ask you to resume your excellent article work and well, let bygones be bygones. I thought this issue was long dead by now...why is it still festering?-- MONGO 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Please review my evidence in the Matanmoreland ArbCom case. Since the events detailed in that case occured, there has appeared to be a continued history of problematic editing by this editor. In looking at the editor's talkpage history, I was surprised by the number of disputes between her and other editors, many of whom are, like yourself, frequent contributors to quality, NPOV articles and not normally in dispute with other editors. I believe a review of this editor's editing history by the community is past due. Please feel free to join in drafting the RfC and, of course, commenting on it once it is posted. Cla68 ( talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla68, I saw your evidence on the MM case regarding Slim and arbcom did nothing about it. frankly, continuing to try and dredge up the same issues makes you look less interested in encyclopedia writing and more interested in axe grinding...seriously, man...I recommend you drop it and move on.-- MONGO 03:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your concern. Cla68 ( talk) 03:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Rather than "a continued history of problematic editing by this editor", your RFC seems to be a coatrack of unrelated complaints, stretching back months or years, few if any with validity, an attempt to create a witch-hunt rather than solve any real or pressing problem. I strongly recommend that you drop the RFC, and your unhealthy focus on SlimVirgin, and instead focus on editing articles.-- MONGO 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The RfC is in its beginning stages. In looking at the editor's editing history, I'm frankly stunned by the amount of condescending, rude behavior towards other editors, POV pushing, bullying, attempts to "get even", and outright lying involving this editor. Check back in another few weeks, I think you'll see what I'm talking about. You can have the last word here on this thread if you'd like. Cla68 ( talk) 03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you found the SlimVirgin diff. I have seen other cases too but I can't readily find them. There isn't much institutional memory here. :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The content of List of animal rights activists (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as of December 2006 was moved, with history, to Animal rights movement (list) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was then redirected to Animal rights movement (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hope that helps! Kirill 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68.

I've followed your RfC on SlimVirgin and maybe these links can be helpful.

• [44]
• [45]
• [46]

Also, you've got to be very careful. Scarfullery, who pointed out that you should investigate the articles on Pierre Salinger and the Pan Am Flight 103, was banned by Jpgordon, who accused him/her of being a sockpuppet of User: Flor Silvestre. It happens that some time ago, Flor Silvestre made some edits about Salinger and the PanAm 103 case, and was blocked too.

These articles history was deleted (by Jpgordon or JzG, I don't recall) just as SlimVirgin deleted her edits on Pierre Salinger and the Pan Am Flight 103. -- Caravato ( talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I checked the links you provided and they don't provide much evidence that can be used in this RfC. This RfC is to invite community comment on problematic behavior on wiki, and as such, needs to be based on diffs or in-wiki links showing actual violations of guidelines or policies. Cla68 ( talk) 01:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd like to send you an e-mail. -- Goldfingaaa ( talk) 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply

My email is linked at left. Click on "email this user". Cla68 ( talk) 23:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, but where?-- Goldfingaaa ( talk) 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Cla68 is what you want. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the help, Lawrence. Cla68 ( talk) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I have replied to each question raised - as long as that question was based on my wikipedia edits. I refuse to discuss accusations made by outside source which are not supported in any way by diffs within wikipedia. This is a fundemntall issue of keeping disputes and accusation outside wikipedia seprate from what takes place here. All my edit are in good faith and if you find any of my edits that need to be explained or discussed I will gladly do so. Zeq ( talk) 07:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply

It's well known that there are POV problems with the Israel-related articles, and some long-time admins have been involved and have not been held fully accountable for their actions. But, it may be that you're being unfairly railroaded in this particular situation. We'll see how things go with the issue. Cla68 ( talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [47] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-- Filll ( talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You aren't an admin, so this comment was uncivil. There was absolutely no consensus that I have misused Twinkle, and I dare you to show me exactly one statement anywhere on Wikipedia on the how to use Twinkle other than "stay within the rules of Wikipedia." Which I have done. Prove otherwise, or I suggest you apologize on my page or here. I don't care. Based on what I've read of your contributions, I don't expect an apology, so I suggest you stay off my page, unless it's to apologize. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Not uncivil, well deserved. Just because he doesn't have the ability to directly back up that warning, doesn't mean others won't. Viridae ^Talk 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You support someone who is attempting to out me? Wow. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I see no evidence whatsoever of Cla attempting to out you. Viridae ^Talk 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Guettarda and GWH seem to think so. I do too. Sorry you can't see the evidence, but you seem to be in the attack mode with me, so I guess I need to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

If anyone outs you OM, it won't be me. If there aren't any more behavioral problems with content in the Intelligent Design-related articles, then my involvement in the issue ends. Cla68 ( talk) 00:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

That reads quite a bit like a threat to out people. It's off-wiki, so you can be as rude as you want, but your threat to out people strikes me as rather beyond the pale. Guettarda ( talk) 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it's unambiguously a threat to out people. Which will get you indef'ed if you follow through on it, and you know that. That's been policy for a very long time. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not threatening to "out" them to the press. I have no control over what the press chooses to report on. My comment was based on someone elses comment earlier in that thread that they had been discussing the situation with an Associated Press reporter. So, it wasn't me that had implied that they had gotten the press involved. I was trying to point that out to any interested reader. Why do you guys feel that I have any influence with the press? Cla68 ( talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It's unfortunate that group of editors' behavior related to Intelligent Design articles has become such a problem that uninvolved editors and admins like me have noticed the problem and gotten involved to varying degrees. I hope that the editors in question are willing and able to correct their behavior on their own. Cla68 ( talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd like to AGF on this one, "editors and admins like me ", as I notice that someone must have left your nick off of Wikipedia:List of administrators/A-F. Would you be so kind as to clarify, possibly get the keeper of the list to add you? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 22:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I clarified my remarks here [48]. Cla68 ( talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It's unfortunate that your responses and "clarification" look very much like thinly veiled threats, in the old gangster tradition. Before throwing around accusations about "POV pushing", it would be best for you to make yourself thoroughly conversant with the background and detail of the circumstances and detail of the case. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to do my best to assist you. Of course if you do think you have a substantial case, I'd advise you to follow dispute resolution procedures rather than getting involved in off-wiki sniping. .. dave souza, talk 08:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I left some comments in the ArbCom case in which Jim62sch was taken to task for threatening to give Videmus Omnia's workplace a call about his Wikipedia activities, remember? So, I think I'm familiar with the dubious background behavior of several of the editors involved in this, which behavior appears to be ongoing. Instead of pointing at me, I think your efforts would be better spent concentrating on these other editor's behavior, because it appears that serious attention to it is overdue. Cla68 ( talk) 11:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually if you look at the particulars of the VO case, that was not what really happened at all, was it? That allegation was never demonstrated, but VO made at least two legal threats on-wiki, published a private email when asked not to on-wiki, tried to do some outing of someone's identity, on-wiki, and stated he was doing it as revenge, on-wiki. All of which are forbidden. So in fact, your characterization is pure nonsense and obfuscation, and in fact looks like intentional and egregiously tortuous misrepresentation. So I think you should rein yourself in, if at all possible, before you get yourself in bigger trouble yet. I see you seem to have some sort of attitude problem, and I would suggest you consider what path you are choosing to go down, before you travel even farther in this direction.-- Filll ( talk) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

<undent>Also, I suggest you do as dave souza suggests before engaging in further braying; that is, take a look at some of the background of this case. The RfC represents just the tip of an immense iceberg. If you believe after reading that material carefully in detail that Moulton was somehow hard done by or treated unfairly on Wikipedia, then I want to see you describe in detail, with diffs, exactly how.

In addition, Moulton has had 3 Wikipedia editors tell him exactly what he needed to do to "fix" the Picard biography, and offer to help him with this task, over a 10 month period. Moulton essentially rejected the first two offers, and months later, has partially accepted the third. How can Moulton be helped when he refuses to help himself?

Now, thanks to the efforts of several editors with assorted orientations, the Picard biography is now moving towards a biography that does not violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, using WP:V WP:RS and WP:CON. Do you claim that somehow I or the other editors who are advocating adequate sourcing and trying to avoid WP:OR are acting in bad faith? What is wrong with the direction that the biography is moving in? Be specific with diffs, please.

Arbcomm when it surveyed the situation decided that Moulton had not been treated unfairly in any way. Do you disagree with Arbcomm? If so, let's hear your allegations and see your evidence. No more vague insinuations. Let's see it, if you have anything.-- Filll ( talk) 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll state my position clearly...my main problem is with the threatening attitude taken and bullying done by by Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin (OM). The veiled threat to notify VO's military superiors about his Wikipedia activities during duty hours, and OM's "Hey, somebody's trying to whitewash the Picard article" and Coppertwig RfA "his POV isn't the same as mine" statements tell me that these two editors need to correct their behavior sooner rather than later. Otherwise, I don't have an opinion on the ID debate. If the editors in question correct their behavior, then I'll gladly move on to other issues. Cla68 ( talk) 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Allow me to clarify some mischaracterizations:

• The veiled threat to notify VO's military superiors about his Wikipedia activities during duty hours Actually it was not demonstrated that this ever happened, and a strong case can be made that this claim is just the result of misinterpretation. OM even said repeatedly he would do everything in his power to avoid any perceived responsibility he had to report any alleged or apparent malfeasance on VO's part. On the other hand, VO violated WP norms and policies several times, and clearly, and we have good evidence of that.
• OM's reponse to edits of the Picard article OM saw edits to the Picard article that replicated those of an editor who had been blocked or banned, so he reverted them. As has been born out by several days of discussion, the consensus version is far closer to the original version than to the version OM was reverting from.
• Opposition to Coppertwig Do you have any idea who Iantresman is or why he was one of the most disruptive editors of all time on Wikipedia? Do you think that opposing the unblocking of someone who was singularly destructive on Wikipedia is a bad thing? I want to see your reasoning as to why you think Iantresman deserves to edit Wikipedia, after you have reviewed the relevant administrative records.

You have continued to dig yourself deeper into a hole. Maybe you should stop while you are ahead, or only a little behind.-- Filll ( talk) 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to see you trying to put lipstick on this situation. Like I said, if there aren't any more conduct problems (edit warring, canvassing, etc) related to ID articles, then I leave it alone. Cla68 ( talk) 00:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Lipstick? Rather misogynistic or chauvanistic or dismissive, no? Nonetheless, these are sounding more and more like threats. (The if/then thing kinda does that). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Maybe you could be a bit more specific about what conduct problems related to ID articles you are on guard against. Do you have any past examples? With diffs? Who was involved? What happened? What action did you take? What action do you plan to take in the future when you observe what you classify as bad behavior? I presume you have taken it upon yourself to be the arbiter here of what constitutes improper behavior?-- Filll ( talk) 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

In addition, if you believe there is evidence of improper behavior going on on the intelligent design articles, why are you not pursuing this through normal Wikipedia channels?-- Filll ( talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

For someone who pretends to be a scientist, that statement is just ridiculous. What you've done is made a claim CLA has done something, offered no evidence, and then continued to develop further strange theories based on what was, in essence, a personal attack and a complete failure to assume good faith. You're just as bad as the fringe theorists you are trying to save us all from - saving we don't need, we're quite capable of seeing rubbish for what it is. Anti-ID "warriors" (as opposed to those who just oppose ID) give real scientists a bad name and just add fuel to the fire of ID-proponents. It's hard enough dealing with fringe-theorists as it is, without those who want to jump in and bash and war their way to creating an avenue for sympathy. "Sympathy for the devil," maybe - but all this attack rubbish is unnecessary. WP:NOT a battle ground and all that. CLA is not an ID proponent. CLA is not your enemy. There are no reds under the bed. 211.31.227.58 ( talk) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:DNFTT &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 18:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with the IP. naerii - talk 09:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Whether you intended this to be a threat is not relevant; it is coercion on its face and has a chilling effect at Wikipedia. Given our policy on coercion, were I in your shoes I would make every effort to ensure that the article outing Wikipedia editors you are referring to does not come to pass. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 05:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Several people have asked me to look into your postings on Wikipedia Review. I agree with FM's comment above. It's pretty clear the commentary on that thread - your commentary - was created in an attempt to harass our contributors with the threat of "outing" them, on a site that has a reputation for doing exactly that. It's also explicitly mentioned as a bannable behavior in the banning policy (linked above). Given the good work you've done with our military history articles, I'm disappointed to see you squandering your good karma participating on a forum that specializes in fostering stalking and harassment. Raul654 ( talk) 06:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Bullshit Raul - that was nothing off the sort. Cla made no threats of outing - direct or implicit. He simply pointed out that those who make themselves conspicuous for solidly pushing a sometimes controversial POV on a high profile site will find frequently themselves recieving media attention - as Eric recently found out. There was no threat, nothing of the sort. That is simply commentary (as you noted) and nothing else. Viridae ^Talk 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Right, and when the mafia coerce someone into paying protection money, they never directly threaten to burn down someone's restaurant... they just talk about what a terrible shame it would be if the place 'accidentally' burned down. "I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia?" - there aren't all that many ways to interpret that paragraph - it's pretty clearly a statement of his intent to go to the press and out them, or to imply that someone else would. And it's all the more weighty because he did go to the press over the Durova matter. Sorry, but that is, on its face, a clear threat (regardless or not of the claimed intent), and is clearly covered by the policy. Raul654 ( talk) 06:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Did you really just compare Cla's statement to the criminal activities of the Mafia...? Your argument died right there with that preposterous simile. Really there was no threats, no coercion, and definitely no signs of him burning down their userpage. That was idle commentary by a concerned wikipedian on a forum that is primarily composed of idle commentary. Viridae ^Talk 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You seem to be having some issues with reality. His comment is clearly coercion of the don't-do-this-or-something-bad-might-happen-to-you variety - exactly the same as used by mafia (and for which they were often convicted in court). You can claim that's not coercion because he only implied outing them instead of outright threatening it, but any reasonable definition of coercion - including legal ones - say otherwise.

As for WR being a forum for idle commentary, again, you seem to be having issues with reality. I would have thought the recent departure of NYB following harassment originating on that forum would have been enough to drive this lesson home, but apparently you're not one to let "facts" and "evidence" get in the way of your claims. Stalking and harassment is a regular occurrence there, NYB was just the latest in a series of people who were harassed off of Wikipedia as a result of it, and there is every reason to treat this threat seriously. Raul654 ( talk) 07:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Pull the other one Raul, it plays a tune. You compared a respected editor to a vile criminal organisation - if thats not supposed to be chilling I don't know what is. There was no threats of outing. Period. Cla made no such threat - idle commentary on the fate of others who have used wikipedia to push their own brand of The Truth^TM is not a threat of outing. Once again - take note of Eric Moeller's situation and that of Essjay - high profile media attention for misconduct or percieved misconduct on wikipedia (and I am sure there are more). On the subject of WR, if you actually took note of the majority of the site you would notice that 1. most of the threads are simply idle commentary or criticism (it is hardly either stalking or harassment to peruse someone's publicly available contributions and criticise them). 2. most if not all of the staff of WR do not actively encourage invasions of privacy or actual harassment (once again criticising someone's publicly available contribs is not harassment - within reasonable bounds) - indeed many staff have actively condemned such behaviour - both publicly and privately, and there was EXTREMELY wide condemnation of those few who decided to take things to far and were responsible for the actions that led to Brad retiring (I assume that you know the full story in this one - not the half truths shrouded in mystery that are commonly available). 3. there are more than a handful of people who hold positions in the community that give them respect including at least one steward, multiple checkusers, multiple overighters, some ex arbs, (until recently) at least one current arb and any number of admins or other respected users. Ultimately, your claims are false. WR should not be judged by the minority of unsatisfied former users/critics who will stop at nothing to achieve their goal, just like WP should not be judged by those responsible for bringing it into disrepute (see GRAWP, and the incident with that American senator whose name I can't spell). But of course I seriously doubt you are ever going to see that, given that you go around comparing the words of a respected user with standover tactics of the mafia. So who was it that is trying to impose a chilling effect here? Viridae ^Talk 07:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It sure reads like a threat, to me. See definition #2. Suggestions that "something bad may happen to you" (a paraphrase) are still threats, even if the "doer of the bad thing" is not specified in the threat itself. Antelan ^talk 12:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Which would make "Run into that busy road without look and you will probobly get hit by a car" similarly a threat? By your definition yes... Viridae ^Talk 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No, it's not even close - not at all. Yours is a statement of probability, and anyone can plainly see that it's a fair assessment. What has gone on here is more like this: "Keep saying things that I disagree with, and you will be publicly outed." Or, if you'd rather stick with automotive analogies, "Keep talking about my company that way, and you'll get hit with a car." Antelan ^talk 20:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

< ---- You know what else the mafia does, Raul654? It sends groups of people to public meetings to spread innuendo and accusations against those who might expose their work. Can't possibly think what made me think of that - but there you go. Now, anyone who was actually interested in acting collegially would have asked CLA "Did you mean to threaten someone?" And, when CLA answered "no, I did not," then one would have to WP:AGF... at least that's what User:Filll tells us, right? As a starting exercise perhaps we can just make sure we're more accurate - this helps with not making vague accusations, I find. So first up, let's investigate the fact that Brad had weathered all that WR review threw at him with consideration and grace and left only after the actions on a certain movie producer's site - actions separate from WR and belittled by a vast majority of its members. At least... we could if you had any interest in what actually happened. But not bothering to read WR before commenting on it has been a hobby of yours for a while. Hmmm... angrily lumping everyone who disagrees with you into an extremist camp... can't possibly think where I've seen that before? (fx: scrolls up). And yes, I am jumping around IPs and not using my account - I'm not interested in having happen to me the meatpuppet show that's so clearly happening to CLA here. 211.31.227.58 ( talk) 08:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

There's certain irony in your post (well many really, but I'll stick with just one): a certain editor is threatening to "out" OM and I, and using coercion quite freely, and yet you in your defense of that editor are hiding behind IP's? It really makes your arguments look even less viable than they already do. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 17:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

1) Please do name those points of irony. Let's not have vague innuendo. Inaccuracy and generalizations are what got us to this point. 2) The entire point of the defence here is that CLA has not threatened to out anyone. I fail to see how jumping from an accusation based on an opinion to "fact" is WP:AGF, collegial or even remotely scientifically honest. It certainly wasn't the most considered of statements, but he's made it quite clear what he did mean and only an Hurculean effort of assuming bad faith can make it look otherwise. 3) Look up irony, I think that you'll find someone complaining about "outing people" with your history of threatening to run to employers fits the definition of someone hiding behind an IP to defend someone against serial meatpuppet attacks. 4) I'm not interested in trolling. If I were interested in that, I would've come crawling onto your talk page on the back of my mate's attacks trying to stir up trouble. Can't think why I thought of that example, but there you go. And you'd be better off accusing Viridae of this IP than CLA - geo-location and all. It makes your group look silly saying someone from Japan's using an Australian ISP. But that's my piece - fear not, I shall not darken your days again: I have an article to collaborate on with people of different opinions - hopefully by accepting that we all have something to offer, we will come up with the goods. 211.31.211.203 ( talk) 09:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Lets consider this; Now, anyone who was actually interested in acting collegially would have asked CLA "Did you mean to threaten someone?" And, when CLA answered "no, I did not,"

Actually, when CLA had this brought to his attention above, he first produced a half hearted denial on WR that sounded more like another threat, and then when asked again on WP above, several times, CLA responded with answers like:

• Like I said, if there aren't any more conduct problems (edit warring, canvassing, etc) related to ID articles, then I leave it alone.

• If the editors in question correct their behavior, then I'll gladly move on to other issue

Do those sound very much like "No I did not?" Not really... They sound more like threats. They sound more like "Do what I ask, or I am going to nail you". Only problem is, it is not even clear what CLA is requesting. One might believe that these are basically open-ended threats to stop editing anything or else.

When asked to clarify this further above, he has remained silent (or maybe withdrawn into some anon sock puppet mode?) And more than a few are unconvinced this has the appearance of something that is not just an innocent misunderstanding. And repeating the threat a couple of times afterwords instead of saying "No I did not" as you suggest really probably is not the best way of convincing others that the threat is not real, dontcha think? -- Filll ( talk) 17:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oh no, someone threatening to look at people's behaviour? Whatever shall we do in this newfound atmosphere of accountability?! naerii - talk 09:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I personally think Cla's comment was poorly worded. I don't believe it was intended to be a threat, in that I don't think Cla has the power or meant to suggest the power to write an article. However, I've recently seen Filll leave this comment, which does appear to be a threat, and recently saw him say to another editor that if he kept it up he'd "soon see what it meant to be bitten" or something very close. Similarly, the whole thing here was in response to one editor apparently writing another to say he'd report him to his employer. Is there a need for all of this? I'm not sure how anyone thinks this style of conversing is good for Wikipedia. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It's not the poorly-worded statement, by itself, that I find worrisome. It's the equally poorly-worded statements after the original statement that make me more gravely concerned. Antelan ^talk 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I think Cla is troubled by the preceding events, and now others are troubled by these events, and now I'm troubled by the successive events. At some point perhaps everyone should take a step back and try a little harder to get along. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

By my rough count, Cla68 was asked at least 6 separate times to clarify his meaning, since it is so serious. Not just once or twice or three times. And Cla68 has answered 5 of those times, each time repeating a threat and escalating it into a sobering stance. Rather than defuse the situation, Cla68 has seen fit to sabre-rattle considerably. I hardly think the other examples you related are anywhere close to comparable.-- Filll ( talk) 21:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

"poorly worded" -- how ironic given the circumstances. Fortunately {{irony}}, it seems that we've all forgotten the sustantive difference between a private e-mail and a non-private comment on the web. Ah well, such is life. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 21:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Lots of saber-rattling, yes, I wish there were less. When you were asked to clarify, you said you had the right to defend yourself. Cla, under similar circumstances, appears to feel the same. All things considered, I'm just not sure what else we can do but recognize much of this has been regretable and perhaps try to move on. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Prior in that thread, Moulton said that he had called someone at the Associated Press to tell them about this issue. When I read Cla's post, I read it in that context - he appeared to be merely acknowledging what Moulton had done, not making a threat. -- B ( talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Everybody could do with less saber rattling and more attempts to work things out like rational adults. *Dan T.* ( talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree. And Cla68 was given at least 6 opportunities to renounce threats and coercion. And 5 of those times Cla68 did not renounce them very convincingly, and the last couple of times, he made the extortion more explicit and the situation worse. And he has not even had the grace to respond to the 6th opportunity, but is letting the blatant and ugly threat of blackmail stand. Ok, fair enough. That is his position. Pretty clearly. He is stating "do not upset me in some unspecified way, or I will destroy you". Sounds like trying to work things out like a nice rational adult, doesn't it?-- Filll ( talk) 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

When first confronted above about the "threat", he posted this on WR and linked to it here. That seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation. Moulton stated that he (Moulton) had contacted a member of the press. Cla68 commented on what Moulton had done. Nothing more, nothing less. I seriously doubt that your club thinks it is anything else, but, rather, just sees this as another opportunity to troll/harass/ban someone who disagrees with you. I think it was Orange Marlin that said this - so forgive me if I'm misattributing it, and I'm paraphrasing, but he said that creationists, racists, homeopaths, were all of the same ilk as far as he was concerned. Really, that's the whole problem here. You think anyone you disagree with about anything is The Enemy (tm). I have no idea (don't care) what Cla68's opinions on religion, homeopathy, or any other subject are and that isn't the point. He didn't harass anyone and the trolling - yes, trolling - of his talk page is over the top. -- B ( talk) 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

<undent>So allow me to understand your point. You claim that asking Cla68 for explanations of what he meant is trolling? Including the posts of FeloniousMonk and Raul654? Interesting. Also you do not agree that creationism, racism and homeopathy all qualify as WP:FRINGE topics? Do I have this correct? You see no similarity among them? By the way, if you confirm that you are formally warning people that any posting to this talk page constitutes trolling, then I personally will then take the appropriate steps.-- Filll ( talk) 16:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

See, this is more of what I am talking about. You're putting words into my mouth. Asking for a clarification isn't trolling. But he gave that clarification early on in this process. A day later, FeloniousMonk threatened Cla68 ("were I in your shoes I would make every effort to ensure that the article outing Wikipedia editors you are referring to does not come to pass" sounds far more like a threat than what Cla68 said, even under the worst possible interpretation of the latter) and Raul654 followed up with a thinly veiled suggestion of a ban. So no, "asking for clarification" isn't trolling. Making threats is. Does that help to clear it up? -- B ( talk) 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I disagree, but that is a more clear statement of your position.-- Filll ( talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

There is no way on gods earth what you said to start this thread was a clarification request - there wasn't even a question involved. It was a thinly veiled threat - not trolling IMO, but defintely a threat. Viridae ^Talk 02:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I think I explained it already, but in case anyone reads this thread and can't find my explanation, my remarks on Wikipedia Review were in reference to this post [49], not a threat to out anyone. I apologize for not choosing my words more carefully. Cla68 ( talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I have asked the arbitration committee to look into your behavior: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cla68 FeloniousMonk ( talk) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Dorftrottel has suggested here that the parties might like to make a fresh statement now that the evidence has been thrown in, and the community is trying to decide what proposed remedies are appropriate.

I have created a new area for this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Reflection by the parties. Please consider adding a statement there. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I have added your name to the list of parties on the JzG dispute. Hopefully you will be able to shed light on these matters and participate in the resolution on this dispute which has carried on for much too long, in my opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI, Wordbomb publicly acknowledged that he lives in Utah in episode six of WP:NTWW, so it's not a matter of dispute. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (with apologies to Fletch) reply

Thank you. I'll note that in the evidence. Cla68 ( talk) 04:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No prob. And, though I hate to pile on, and felt no need to mention this to you at the RfC page when I noticed it a month or so ago, now that you are fighting for your reputation at ArbCom, I'll offer up a few more coffin nails, in that: You also missed my 3RR block by FM reported by SV, imo, (a WP:WHEEL vio at that, as I'd been blocked and unblocked already). And she accused me of stalking her circa 5 June 2007, but I think she's just a little paranoid on that score, generally. I don't really want my handle in flashing lights on any of that, and I'll leave you to sort out the diffs if you see fit. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 04:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, wait, the 3RR thing was mentioned by User:B, not you. Never mind that then. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Diffs added. Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 06:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Am I on your hit list? I'd appreciate a little advance knowledge, so that I can begin preparing to defend myself. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I thought Everybody Loves Raymond, no? - this is a friendly way of saying that I don't think there really is a 'hit list' or anything - though p'raps that'll get me before the Committee of Un-Wikipedian Activities myself before too long! (g'day Cla68, by the way) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 05:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply

He has consistently slagged the global warming "cabal," [50] accusing us of running a "walled garden." [51] And it's fairly obvious that once you get on his bad side, you can expect an onslaught of RfCs, arbcom filings, and the like. So I hope you can understand my concern. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Taking people to task for acting against policy or making contribution difficult? Whatever next! This Cla68 person is obviously crazy for going through the proper dispute resolution procedures. -- 163.1.110.77 ( talk) 10:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I am on a diet, so please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't take him to task for using DR, but simply asked if I was on the list so that I could begin preparing my defense. His failure to respond here leads me to assume that I am. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

That makes no sense. If you have no idea what his accusations will be, how can you prepare a defense? I am at a loss to understand this statement, or this purported concern. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

If you have no idea what his accusations will be, how can you prepare a defense? That's the whole point of my question. I want to know what I'm in for. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Who said you're in for anything? Really. What, you want him collecting diffs in a subpage? This is just silly. Stop over-reacting to someone who says you bully people by bullying him. Raymond, I've seen you 'round, I know you're a good guy, I see no reason for you to do this sort of piling-on, its petty. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 19:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Forewarned is forearmed.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 15:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

And you need to read WP:BATTLEFIELD. Seriously. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

History is the best predictor of the future. And you should know the related history before you comment.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

All Cla does is gather diffs to use in appropriate DR processes. If there is nothing in the diffs, there is nothing to worry about; the community will side with the most reasonable policy interpretation of whatever matters are being discussed. Amerique ^dialectics 17:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

If that was all that Cla68 did, you would be correct. Unfortunately, you are incorrect in this instance.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, he does also write a lot of FA content. Of course, I'm not aware of everything Cla does. But really, if his accusations are baseless, why act as if this exercise has an object? Amerique ^dialectics 17:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Because even if accusations are baseless, it can take a lot of time and energy to respond to them. If I have to prove that I'm not made of wood, I'd like to get a head start. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

In my case, he made vague allusions to something I supposedly did wrong. I asked and asked and asked him to clarify what that was, and how I could avoid doing something he took offense at in the future to prevent him from carrying out his threats. He did not respond. And now I have to spend a lot of time dealing with the threat. So...-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, so there's a pattern here. I thought as much but thanks for the confirmation. There are certain steps that I will take to keep on top of the situation. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 19:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Two things: first, you're not Filll. It should be patently obvious that something addressed to Filll isn't necessarily addressed to you. Second, "certain steps"? what is this, the threat-down? -- Relata refero ( disp.) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh good grief. There's no threat. I'll just be looking over his shoulder so I can see what I'm in for, if anything. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Probably accounts for this. I guess Cla68 got what he wanted?-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, the only pattern I see is a number of people coming and making generally negative comments on Cla68's talk page. When I see you take issue that Cla68 referred to a "walled garden" and then come asking about his "hit list," I wonder if this difference in perception may be part of the problem. Mackan79 ( talk) 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This snarky hitlist comment would be based on an Arbcom case that Cla68 filed, right? Oh, wait ... he didn't file the case. HOW DARE YOU DEFEND YOURSELF CLA68. Neıl 龱 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Did you actually read this whole thread? Neil, I have a lot of respect for you but please look at what I'm facing. Cla68 has described those who adhere to the mainstream scientific view of climate change as a "cabal" who are tending a "walled garden," so I think I have a right to be concerned. What am I supposed to think when he has steadfastly refused to provide any response whatsoever? Raymond Arritt ( talk) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

(ri)Personally, I'd just ignore Cla's trolling on this point. WWII PTO, he's an expert on, the rest he's like a bee buzzing round a plastic petunia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 20:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Jim, I'm not an expert on the Pacific War and have never claimed to be one. It's just a subject that I edit and write about in my spare time. The only thing I might be considered an expert on is what I do for work, and I never discuss this in Wikipedia, because there's no reason to. Cla68 ( talk) 20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

We're talking about your WP creds, I think. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Background

Let me give some background that I should have given at the outset. I apologize for not having done so earlier.

On April 16 Cla68 showed up on my talk page to compliment me on my activity in the global warming articles, stating "I've seen some complaints both on and off-wiki that those articles are supposedly a walled garden protected by a group of POV pushers. But seeing as how you're actively involved with them, I know that can't be the case." [52] It seemed a bit out of the blue given that I'd never had substantial dealings with him and he wasn't an active editor in the climate topics, but I thought well, that's a nice pat on the back.

Then on April 24 he says "There's evidence of cabalism in all of these examples- global warming, Gary Weiss, Israel history" [53] (notice this one especially) and on April 26 he criticizes "people in the global warming walled garden." [54] That's a complete turnaround in just a week! First he tells me that he's confident there's no global warming walled garden, and only a few days later there are two criticisms of the purportedly nonexistent walled garden and the "cabalism" that surrounds it.

I could think of only two alternatives: (1) something happened that made him take a sudden 180-degree turn in his view of our global warming editors, or (2) his original message to me was nothing more than an attempt at ingratiation. I couldn't think of any big blowups in the global warming articles that could have led to (1), so I thought about (2). I had a look through his contributions and found an outstanding editor of military history articles who seemingly had a tendency to carry grudges and a fondness for process. I recalled especially that one of his comments mentioned global warming in the same breath as Gary Weiss and Israeli history, two areas where he was actively engaged in testifying or compiling evidence against purported wrongdoers. Hence I wound up here and basically said, look, if you're going to file something against me then let me know and don't keep me in suspense.

And of course I'd like to know the reason for his sharp apparent U-turn on the global warming "cabal" (per WP:AGF, assuming his original message to me was sincere). Maybe there's a problem that I can help to resolve. But all I'm getting in response is... no response. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Raymond, sorry for the delayed response, but I'm kind of busy with another issue right now (see thread below). Anyway, the post to your talk page was sincere. About two years ago I was involved in some debates on the Global warming talk page, and I've noticed some continuing discussion about it lately in other locations. I haven't tried to see how much you're involved. I've also seen your apparently effective work on ANI and AN with unrelated admin issues. If you'd like to discuss the Global warming article with me, I should have time after this ArbCom case is over. Cla68 ( talk) 02:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply. I realize you're busy right now. The big question I have is, why the sudden turnabout? What made you go from saying there's no walled garden, to complaining of cabalism and a walled garden, in just a few days? I'm really at a loss there. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll be happy to discuss it fully when I have more time. Cla68 ( talk) 02:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh well. At least I tried. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 04:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

That's one of my favorite lines from that movie. You weren't purposely comparing Wikipedia, or my userpage, with the setting in that film, were you :-). Cla68 ( talk) 06:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No, I'm not a big film buff. Though there are days when I think a "cuckoo's nest" would be a step up from Wikipedia...;-) Raymond Arritt ( talk) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Not a bit Nurse Ratched. Any similarities to living people or current events are purely circumstantial. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comparing any Wikipedia editor to an antagonist from a movie is something we probably should avoid. Have you seen that movie, by the way? Cla68 ( talk) 20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It's in my top 25.

We should avoid it, why? If the foo shits... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 22:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

"I recalled especially that one of his comments mentioned global warming in the same breath as Gary Weiss and Israeli history, two areas where he was actively engaged in testifying or compiling evidence against purported wrongdoers..." That's the central motivator in your decision to turn up here? Poor research then, Raymond, because as far as I know Cla has never touched the user problems in Israeli history. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 05:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply

And User:SlimVirgin has nothing to do with topic related to Israeli history, right...? Raymond Arritt ( talk) 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No, not really. The last time I saw her pop up on that part of my watchlist was when she went to an article on the '48 War to add a ref to a quote she came across in reading Holocaust-related material, which she does edit regularly. Not really much aside from that, ever, I think. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 19:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply

"I been silent so long now it's gonna roar out of me like floodwaters and you think the guy telling this is ranting and raving my God; you think this is too horrible to have really happened, this is too awful to be the truth! But, please. It's still hard for me to have a clear mind thinking on it. But it’s the truth even if it didn't happen." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 21:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Umm, I think most of us moved on from the movie some time ago. Dont feel any pressure to keep up, though. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, that was funny. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. I know SlimVirgin only by reputation; as far as I can recall, I haven't had any quarrels with her. I have tried to clean up some of the LaRouche articles which had multiple BLP problems, just as I have tried to clean up bios on other controversial figures like Robert Mugabe. Apparently getting involved with the LaRouche controversies is what got me on her list. Question: why would she repeatedly make such a list, and then admin-delete it? Couldn't she just keep the whole thing privately on her hard drive? -- Marvin Diode ( talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

That's a good question. Cla68 ( talk) 13:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I have removed your reposting of deleted content in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#SV's "attack page" assertion. Obviously an admin has given you a copy of that deleted page, which is fine, but you have (perhaps unknowingly) broken the trust of that admin by reposting deleted content. If you feel that the contents of a deleted page should be restored, you need to go through the proper processes, which in this case would typically be WP:MFD but if you can demonstrate the usefulness of undeleting the page in order for non-admins to collaborate on Evidece, you could request it is undeleted by arbcom - personally I dont think that the contents of the page are needed; your knowledge of the contents should be sufficient to allow you to present evidence if you believe there has been any misconduct in that deleted page. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The process would be DRV, not MFD. Neıl 龱 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

the first item (relating to an animal rights article from this may) you characterize her activity as 'removing cited content.' The items removed appear to have been put into a new section during the same edit. So while the edit summary is a bit misleading, there doesn't appear to be actual removal of content. There is enough poor behavior documented that I don't think you have to stretch items to show a problem. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 03:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I must have misread it. I'll remove it. Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 04:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla, I don't know how busy you are (I'd imagine very), but if you're in the mood for some friendly advice I'm willing to offer it. Whilst I have faith in the arbcom process (says the person who refuses to get an account because they hate the politics - the irony isn't lost on me) and I fully believe that they'll accord each piece of evidence its own weight, I think it may be in your interests to seriously tighten and polish the sections of your evidence alleging bad faith editing and abusiveness. Since many of those situations are decidedly not black and white I believe you might be better off either removing ones which are only on the border of incivility; or alternatively you could provide extensive rationales for each which explain why you believe them to be so. As it stands, whilst I believe they're on the whole accurate and representative of the behaviour of these editors, you want to avoid having the particularly damning evidence (such as abuse of admin tools, and clear-cut meatpuppetry / cabalism) whitewashed by having someone point to "frivolous" grey-area accusations.

Stand strong! Don't let anyone goad you into being uncivil, and maintain your excellent diligence for which you will always have my respect. -- 129.67.162.133 ( talk) 12:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the advice and after being away from the computer for much of the past weekend I'm now trying to review the evidence I presented as you suggest. Cla68 ( talk) 02:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You win. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

(comment left by 74.9.242.66) Viridae ^Talk 03:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Raymond, why did you say, "remember, what goes around comes around" in the edit summary [55]? Cla68 ( talk) 03:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

In some traditions, it's called karma; in others, the Golden Rule. 74.9.242.66 ( talk) 04:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I find it very funny that you are ostracising Cla by accusing him of ostracising other editors. So Raymond, do you not like it behaviour that harms WP gets pointed out and dealt with? Viridae ^Talk 04:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

That's the big question, isn't it -- what did I do to harm Wikipedia? Yeah, I know I'm not perfect (who is?) but he's steadfastly refused to give me a response. 74.9.242.66 ( talk) 04:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Well since I have no idea where you are accused of hurting WP, I really can't answer that one. Viridae ^Talk 04:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Raymond is right you know, what goes around comes around, which is exactly why Fill's posse is before the ArbCom and FeloniousMonk is in hot water for abusing his power again. I assume thats how Ray meant it and that he was merely thanking you for facilitating karma on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.24.87 ( talk) 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

"Filll's posse"? Oh, that's too fucking funny. Well, at least in my RFAR comments I seem to be right re "guilt by (alleged) association". If I had some LSD to drop this whole thing might make sense, but being sober, I'm afraid I find it to be surreal at best. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 19:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm very disappointed at what Raymond Arritt is doing. I'm not entirely happy myself with Cla's aggressive approach, but I really don't understand why some admins are so quick to defend each other no matter what. Raymond's history is completely different from the editors that Cla has taken to task, so why is Raymond feeling such affinity to the anti-science POV-pushing on animal testing, or the "good guys vs. bad guys" mentality on intelligent design (see this post by User:Silence)?

As great an admin as I think that Raymond is, if he is going to leave Wikipedia and blame Cla68 for it, well, that only serves as evidence to show that Raymond isn't as independently thinking as I had hoped he was... (yes, indeed, there is even a veiled accusation in there that this whole thing might be orchestrated to make Cla68 look bad. Sure, I'm assuming bad faith, so feel free to ban me, I don't care, that's how this looks to me.)

Now Cla, you might want to consult with Tim Vickers about whether your way of dealing with SV is optimal. Somehow, he seems to be able to get along fine with her in spite of their differences of opinion. I think his opinion on this matter would be extremely valuable, don't you think? Merzul ( talk) 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

If you want to put up with threats that can put you in harm's way, then be my guest. Some of the rest of us object to it. Independent thinkers or not. By the way, real independent thinkers would just get even. So you should be glad Raymond isnt that type.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

As great an admin as I think that Raymond is. Correction: Was.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 20:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Get even for what, exactly? I haven't seen any place where Cla said anything threatening, or even critical, of Raymond. Rather, he took personally what Cla had said elsewhere about others, and then quit in a huff when he didn't get the response he wanted. *Dan T.* ( talk) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not going to discuss it with you. Cla68 knows. And Raymond knows but will not be telling. So Cla68 wins one. Hurray for bullying! You should feel proud of yourselves.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 20:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

By the way I am sure you think it is all fine. After all boys will be boys, right?-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

As I said, this is not about winning, and you know perfectly well that losing Raymond means we all have lost. In fact, we all lost the moment this was taken to arbitration. However, Cla68 is not the only one with collateral damage in his campaigns, which is precisely the reason we are in this mess to begin with. All wars comes with a price... so admitting to and apologizing for one's mistakes goes a very long way in satisfying most of us. I haven't seen admissions or apologies, or any indication that the collateral damage is even recognized. And as long as the self-righteous attitude continues, there will be people like Cla68 to fight "just wars" of their own. Once more, I think that these attempts to portray Cla68 as the villain is extremely misguided, when simple apologies and a humble attitude would far more effectively solve most of the problems. Thanks, Merzul ( talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, this is pure nonsense. Cla68 could have stopped the Arbcomm proceeding from going forward. He had several days to do so. And plenty of opportunity. It was only done as a last resort. And I agree that we lost by losing Raymond, but I know of a large number of people that are probably quite excited about it. After all, there is little more that is evil and unwanted at an encyclopedia than trained, degreed scientists, is there? Oh how terrible!! You should feel proud of yourself. If you think that something bad happened here, take a good look in the mirror to see who might have contributed. -- Filll ( talk | wpc) 17:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Filll, I'm backing off. Although I find these recent actions over-dramatic, I can see the point you are making. I will indeed look in the mirror, because to some extent I am enabling harassment from external sites, and I don't want to have anything to do with that. Gossip is simply not my style: when I have objections, I take it up with the person in question.

And Cla68, I'm very confused about this all, it is hard to see what you actually want. What do you really hope to achieve by all this?? Sure, there are some deep complicated issues, but is the RfC-business really the right way? I don't know, I will shut up now. Be good, Merzul ( talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

"Life's but a walking shadow,a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing." Shakespeare, Macbeth. Amerique ^dialectics 01:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

That's Shakespeare, isn't it? dorftrottel ( talk) 08:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Obviously. However, to use that quote to refer specifically to Filll or Raymond is absurd: there's enough of that quote to go around on WP, especially to the Drama Queens (non-gender specific). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thought you might be interested in this link as it deals with one of your FA articles.... Air Force wing in nuclear goof has more trouble.-- Looper5920 ( talk) 00:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Oops, back to article writing. So that wing flunked their inspection huh? I'll add that to the article. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Cla68 ( talk) 12:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

One minor correction wrt this: User:Kelly is not an admin. (And she appears to have a bit of a history of unnerving others with sometimes suboptimal actions on images.) dorftrottel ( talk) 06:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmm. Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 10:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, I came here to tell you something after an unpleasant encounter with SlimVirgin, as I found that you had prepared a draft RfC on the user. I'm not sure what the above comment ("suboptimal") means, to my knowledge I haven't made errors on copyvio allegations (if so, I'm sure I've acknowledged and apologized - it is my policy to do so). Anyway, I ran across this image where SlimVirgin had undeleted an image deleted as copyvio without any comment as to reasons. Kelly ^hi! 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry for butting in, but I believe in keeping conversations intact. Kelly, I'm sorry to see that happened to you, since good image people are in short supply on Wiki, and it's not easy work. I know of two users, who are active at WP:FAC and who may be able to give another opinion on the matter: Elcobbola ( talk · contribs) (who's on a short break now) and Black Kite ( talk · contribs). If you "speak" images, we'd love to see you get involved at WP:FAC (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches) to help ease the load on ec and BK. I hope you won't let the personalization of the issue by SlimVirgin deter you from your image work. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure, Sandy - I'll take a look and see what I can do. Kelly ^hi! 18:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Ooh, an arbitration case! I just found out about this, will have to take a look. By the way, SlimVirgin's problem-tag removing behavior is continuing beyond the evidence you gave. [56] Kelly ^hi! 18:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Kelly, I was away from the computer for awhile so I missed this thread until just now. You might consider adding your own evidence section to the current ArbCom case, or you can post what you have here and I'll add it to my evidence section. Cla68 ( talk) 18:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Based on what I've read so far, it seems this editor, and their friends, will target editors who disagree with them. I don't particularly like getting into confrontations with other editors, this has come up on my talk page before. If I pass evidence to you, would you mind passing it along to the Arb case? Kelly ^hi! 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. Cla68 ( talk) 19:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, Kelly, on a personal note, I suggest that you completely back out of the situation; read my evidence section at the ArbCom. I was able to stay on Wiki because the community defended and supported me since I'd been around long enough for people to know my work, my standards, my character and to recognize the charges for what they were. If you haven't been on Wiki a long time, you might be better advised not to tackle windmills. Let someone else deal with those images, and move along to another area: we can use reviewers at FAC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Uh, it's "tilt at windmills. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 20:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Everyone who knows me knows my prose is tortured, Jim :-) If you start correcting it now, it could become a very time-consuming hobby! Cheers, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I was just teasing you. You raised a really good point, though.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; ^dissera! 20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

About my tortured prose? Self-awareness is A Good Thing; if we saw more of it, we might not find so many good editors tied up in this ArbCom when there are so many important things to do :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Kelly, I was just about to ask you if any editors had suddenly shown up on your user page to accuse you of "harassing" SlimVirgin and threatening you with some type of administrative or dispute resolution action, but I went and looked at your user page first. Sure enough, I saw this [57] there. Cla68 ( talk) 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I am really mystified about this. There apparently was some coincidental overlap (I also help work some BLP issues in addition to my main work in copyright areas) - that is now being conflated to conclude that I am harassing this user. I have never seen anything like this, though admittedly I normally stay out of controversial areas. Ugh. Sandy has advised me to step away, this is likely good advice but I hate yielding the field to people who will slander me. I don't know what to do. Kelly ^hi! 22:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I mentioned what was going on to Rlevse, one of the ArbCom clerks. He was already monitoring the situation and I trust his judgement. As far as the Palestine-Israel ArbCom case portion of it, I'd recommend letting that go for now. Since you have knowledge and experience with image licensing, however, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't continue your involvement with the image licensing issues that you've highlighted in that ANI thread and the discussion on the PUI page. You've been doing a good job keeping your comments polite and on-topic in spite of the other editor trying to personalize the dispute. Cla68 ( talk) 22:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, I will look through the user's log for other improper administrative actions regarding images and copyright. Kelly ^hi! 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Even though I have commented in opposition to your image work and stances thereon, I just wanted to say that I hope you won't let the current dust-up get you down. This project needs as many dedicated editors as it can get, and I definitely see you as one of them. ^_^ -- Dragon695 ( talk) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Another image restoration

Here. Kelly ^hi! 05:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Added [58]. Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 14:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Cla, for signing on my talk page. I'm not sure how to get the ball rolling, and I'll be traveling this week, so please feel free to start in on things if you're so inclined. Best, Gnixon ( talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. I'm trying to finish up an article this week, but I'll also try to spend some time helping to get things started with it. Cla68 ( talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Just a heads up that I've started the discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Please review our behavioral guideline on canvassing, located at WP:CANVASS. I believe recent messages you have sent to alert individuals about ongoing !votes could be viewed to be in violation of this guideline (specifically, the "Votestacking" and "Stealth canvassing" sections), and reccomend that you consider not notifing outside forums about ongoing !votes to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Please note that I specifically do not accuse you of actual bad acts, but rather act in the interest of avoiding further strife between various parties due to their possible misinterpretation of your actions. Thank you. PouponOnToast ( talk) 14:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

As an additional note, some individuals might see this as badgering your opponents. You should consider not asking individuals who you are in a dispute with to take actions multiple times - you have requested that parties reflect on the RFAr elsewhere. Please note that I specifically do not accuse you of actual bad acts, but rather act in the interest of avoiding further strife between various parties due to their possible misinterpretation of your actions. Thank you. PouponOnToast ( talk) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks Poupon, I believe you're referring to this post [59] of mine at Wikipedia Review? Cla68 ( talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am. PouponOnToast ( talk) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

How is that canvassing? ++ Lar: t/ c 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

"Please note that I specifically do not accuse you of actual bad acts, but rather act in the interest of avoiding further strife between various parties due to their possible misinterpretation of your actions." Emphasis added. PouponOnToast ( talk) 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Who else have you been giving these suggestions to? They're helpful but probably most effective if spread around to all parties that might possibly be doing things that are subject to misinterpretation. ... if you do that I suspect you'll be rather busy. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Ironically, as you were writing this I was busy giving unsolicited advice to Filll. PouponOnToast ( talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Uh, has anyone actually misinterpreted Cla68's actions? Clearly, as you state considering them to be canvassing would be a misinterpretation, they were not canvassing in your view. I don't believe anyone considers them to have been canvassing. Bringing up interesting threads on an off-Wiki discussion forum is not canvassing. Bringing them up and saying "everyone vote delete" or "everyone vote keep", then yes, that would be canvassing. This is, I believe, a nothing statement you have made, Poupon. Neıl 龱 15:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

If Cla68 is interested in having interesting discussions offsite, that is certainly his right. He should consider balancing his desire to have interesting discussions with the posibility that individuals might misinterpret his actions, and thus inflame disputes he is already in. My statement is advice that, if followed, would help resolve the ongoing disputes that you are all currently embroiled in. PouponOnToast ( talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

One last question - what ongoing disputes am I embroiled in? I can't think of any. I have contributed a little to a few recent RFCs and RFArbs, but I don't think I'm embroiled in anything. (Sorry, Cla, for using your talk page for this). Neıl 龱 15:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Works for me. PouponOnToast ( talk) 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. I appreciate Poupon taking a break from his article-writing [60] to come give me and others some free advice. Cla68 ( talk) 15:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

One final piece of advice before I go back to not writing articles. Humor dosen't work over the internet. I assume the above was written in jest, as opposed to in spite, but others would lack my assumption (of good faith.) Please try to avoid the use of humor in the above manner, as it is guaranteed to bring bad feelings. PouponOnToast ( talk) 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla does make a reasonable point ... being lectured on how to comport oneself on an encyclopedic project by a user who, in over 16 months, has made less than 20 edits to articles (if one ignores undos and reversions) is somewhat ironic. Neıl 龱 15:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Without endorsement, if you trust your friends at Wikipedia Review I have approx 2k main space edits streaching back to October 2004. If you trust me, I have approx 3k main space edits streaching back to 2002, with, er, one FA. Of course, you should take everything anyone writes, even myself, with a giant grain of salt. If you don't think my advice is accurate or helpful, please ignore it. Also, Neil, in your opinion, should Cla68 continue to use ironic or sarcastic humor, or is it likley to be misinterpreted and create bad feeling? In other words, focus on the content, not the contributor. PouponOnToast ( talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Point taken. Cla68 ( talk) 16:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, I did. Neıl 龱 16:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm curious, Poupon. You say here that "specifically you are not accusing anyone of actual bad acts", but that's not really quite true, is it? After all, on the DRV page you state "I believe the sender of the neutrally worded canvasing message believed the group of people was likley to support undeletion, and note that the sender of the canvasing message has !voted undelete above". So which is it? A "neutral attempt" or "canvasing with intent"? You can't claim one thing here and be all "I'm AGF", when in DRV you were quite clearly stating a belief that there was an intent to the "canvassing". The deeper issue, of course, of whether observing something is "canvassing" is something else altogether. Achromatic ( talk) 16:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Knowledge does not equal intent. PouponOnToast ( talk) 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

So, you're certain that you're assuming good faith having indicated in your opinion somebody believed ( any sources for that? ) his target audience would happen to vote a specific way, by a happy co-incidence they did.. as I said a happy co-incidence, you're not implying any intent whatsoever. No sirree.... 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minkythecat ( talk • contribs)

Cla, I'd appreciate it if you could be a bit more careful in assembling your evidence, otherwise you might end up undermining the credibility of the valid majority of it. This diff (highlighted here) is one such example. SlimVirgin did not remove anything in that diff, she merely decided to post her comment directly below KimvdLine's comment to which she was replying, thereby simply moving Pete Peters' below her new post. dorftrottel ( talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, what that diff is is an example of personalizing a dispute. I wasn't looking at it closely enough before I posted it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cla68 ( talk) 11:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I would like to take you up on a brief discussion of the William M. Connolley criticism I mentioned yesterday at Wikipedia:AN#Abuse_of_adminship_by_User:R._Baley_and_User:Raul654. On the one hand I understand that the quote in question was sort of cherry picked out of the article in the sense that it didn't reflect the overall tone of the article or at least the section related to WMC. On the other anyone who frequents the global warming related pages is well aware that this is a common criticism of WMC, as well as those familiar with some of the arbitration incidents related to him as well. These are all established fact on Wikipedia but of course you are not allowed to reference them except via a WP:RS, which The New Yorker is as is the National Post which has an Op/Ed on the main part of its site discussing this subject as well. So I have two WP:RS sources and yet I am blocked from entering criticism on his page, something that he does on a regular basis to those with whom he disagrees.

Now, perhaps the stark wording that I quoted directly from the article is a bit much but doesn't this support at least a one line summary of the situation? Remember, neither of the sources is written or influenced by me personally. True, I agree with them, but they represent the views found in the WP:RS not mine.

Would be more acceptable to make a succinct statement such as "Connolley has been accused of using Wikipedia as a forum in which to advance his own views on climate change and to attack those with which he does not agree." and cite both The New Yorker and the Nation Post pieces as references?

I'm not out to get him or anything, but this is legitimate criticism in one form or another, IMHO, and it shouldn't be allowed to be whitewashed. -- GoRight ( talk) 20:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:BLP stipulates that material added to a BLP, especially praise or criticism, requires a "a high degree of sensitivity" and must ensure that "the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides". Of course, editors are very subjective in their interpretation of what this really means. Also, the application of this policy throughout Wikipedia is uneven and unfair. Some BLP's have contained extensive criticism sections of the subject that weren't rectified for some time ( Patrick M. Byrne and Rosalind Picard are two examples), while others apparently have dedicated editors who try, often successfully, to make sure that little to nothing negative is added (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat). Let me be clear, though, I'm not necessarily saying that Connelley's bio falls into the latter camp.

If you feel that the text you mention above needs to be in his bio, there is a process to go about it. First, post your proposed text on the talk page under a new section and invite comment. No matter what anyone else says in response, stay reasonable, patient and polite in your conversations with them. If the conversation doesn't make any progress, then post your proposed text and rationale at WP:BLPN. If that doesn't work, for example if the BLPN reviewers give you the green light but then other editors refuse to actually allow you to add the material, then use the first step in the dispute resolution process, which is a content RfC. In my opinion, the statement you propose above is more neutral than the one that you actually tried to add. Cla68 ( talk) 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your thoughtful response and excellent advice. As it turns out, the WP:BLPN entries I posted brought some very helpful contributions to the page. I think that the result is very reasonable and I am satisfied with it from the perspective of what I wanted to accomplish. The question is, of course, whether it will be accepted by the regulars over time. -- GoRight ( talk) 06:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla68, it has been brought to my attention that somewhere in your Arbitration case evidence you have claimed that in 2005 I was involved in a "wheel war" of the blocking of User:Marsden. Can you explain what you mean by that? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, it appears that SlimVirgin and FeloniousMonk are the ones who were really wheel-warring in that situation, not you. I mentioned your name because you are often involved in issues with those two editors. In this case, however, I don't think you personally are wheel warring. I apologize for giving that impression and will try to reword that passage. Cla68 ( talk) 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Done [61]. Cla68 ( talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you explain why you mention my name as opposed to, say, User:El C, who first blocked him, or User:Dmcdevit who subsequently blocked him, or User:Raul654 who blocked him after I did, or User:Phil Sandifer who indefinitely blocked him, or User:Rd232, User:Talrias and User:Tshilo12 who actually did wheel-war over the block, or User:Jimbo Wales who eventually indefinitely blocked him again? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I believe my evidence section gives further examples of how you and a few other admins are usually the same ones involved in situations like that one in which SlimVirgin and/or FeloniousMonk are also involved. Cla68 ( talk) 05:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, would you like to become an administrator? Jehochman ^Talk 02:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

IMHO, you definitely have earned it. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Absolutely, and much better nominator than I would be. Cool Hand Luke 06:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed. You got 4 supports already =D. Kwsn (Ni!) 06:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

5 Viridae ^Talk 06:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Make it six; gets my vote. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 08:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the offers of support and am ready to accept a nomination. Thanks again. Cla68 ( talk) 08:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You've got mail. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

(ec) First, the arbitration case has to formally close. If you want to maximize your chances, it may help to let a bit of time pass and show everybody that you can let go of past disputes. If you are going to be an admin, your only motives need to be protecting the encyclopedia and helping other users. If there are folks who have treated you poorly, you'd need to ignore them as much as possible. They might try to goad you, but if you rise above it, that will show your character. Jehochman ^Talk 09:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Good advice. Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 09:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Teaching him to game the system? O.o — Giggy 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Got e-mail from me as well, though you can probably figure out what it is before reading it Wizardman 00:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I would definitely support as well. Have seen your work at WP:FAC - I think you'd do a great job. Kelly ^hi! 00:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You don't have an email from me, but I'll say it onwiki - I'm offering to nominate. — Giggy 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the offers of support. I think we should wait until the current case closes. Cla68 ( talk) 03:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

If there are no surprises with the case, you may be able to expedite the process by undertaking not to raise past issues with the other parties, and not to use sysop tools in any matter where they are involved. High ground is a good place to be. Jehochman ^Talk 05:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it goes without saying that it would be inappropriate for me to ever use admin tools with any of the other parties in this case. As far as bringing up the past, as one of the evidence sections points out, other editors have the same concerns that I do regarding the other two editors in this case (I'm not referring to JzG or Viridae), but had not raised them before because they feared retaliation. Cla68 ( talk) 06:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You've certainly got my vote. *Dan T.* ( talk) 06:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't wait until the case closes - I'd like to be able to vote while I'm still alive. :-) ATren ( talk) 12:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Giggy, you're nominating this guy? O.o or offering to... Seriously, I would offer to nominate also, but given my current reputation that would actually hurt Cla's chances, so I'll just say, count me as a supporter. Yechiel ( Shalom) 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm a bit late to the party, but count me amongst the people looking forward to your run :) Naerii 04:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

To be honest, I think the apology needs to go the other way. Let's take a look at some history. A while back, I criticized Viridae for leaving a warning for MONGO hwile they were in a dispute. I believe it was around the time Miltopia was banned by Jimbo. Viridae took exception to my criticism. Apparently that led him to putting my talk page on his watch list. Last month, Giovanni33 (now banned) by engaging me in an edit war on Joe Scarborough. Viridae showed up to protect the page (ostensibly to end an edit war, but in reality the it was just harassment by Giovanni33). It was easier to jsut file the unprotect notice when Giovanni33 went away and the article could be restored. I let the fact that it was Viridae go as this was the first time I am aware of that he used comments on my talk page as the jumping off point to use the tools. The second time was more problematic and it's recentness to the previous incident was alarming. United States intervention in Chile was the second article I was aware of. An editor was using WikiGuard and it flagged my 3 edits over two weeks as a 3RR violation. This attracted Viridae faster than stink on sh_t and he went to investigate whether it was blockable. Of course it wasn't, so Viridae protected the page instead. Viridae doesn't protect many pages so this was becoming problematic. I simply and politely asked that he remove my talk page from his watchlist as his actions were becoming problematic. I really don't need him following me around and his actions only lead to progress being thwarted and/or trolls being rewarded. For that effort, I have to put up with external rants. Viridae on his talk page claimed he would have to be psychic to realize that the pages he was protecting all involved Giovanni33. I don't request him to be psychic, I just want him to not engage.

As for the apology, one of WRs main complaints about admins is that they often act without providing a rationale or evidence. I can imagine Viridaes response to JzG or SV or WMC blocking a relative newbie on a claim of sockpuppetry without any evidence other than "I know it's him." Even if they were right, such blocks rarely go unchallenged so challenging it shouldn't be regarded as something that needs an apology. Imagine an admin that Viridae considers problematic showing up to protect pages of articles that he works on claiming they found a "problem" through Viridaes talk page and repeatedly used that as an excuse to protect the article? No one appreciates admins that behave that way.

Again, all I want is for Viridae to take my talk page off his watch list and leave me alone. It's not an unreasonable request. There are plenty of admins that can provide blocks and protection of articles. He doesn't need to escalate these incidents by involving himself when he knows the editors will take exception. This was apparent in his block of Crum/Para. Even if he's right, he's wrong. And if he needs to brag and gloat about it offsite, it's cleary wrong. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll think you'll find that the categories Ethnic and religious slurs | Pejorative terms for people do exist, they are both in the Nigger article. Cheers 124.254.121.189 ( talk) 03:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The links showed as red when I tried them in the article. Cla68 ( talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You'll find them here [ [62]] and here [ [63]] Maybe they showed in red because the term Gaijin is not in those lists? Then there is also [ [64]] and [ [65]] that the word could also be put into 124.254.121.189 ( talk) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I would really encourage you to take a look at the rationale for "racial slur" category in particular. Reliable sources really do not describe the word/idea in this way, though I realize blogs/forums do. I have looked long and hard for proper references, and have found only one, [66] which was about American usage only. Maybe you have other sources available to you, though. Slp1 ( talk) 11:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Re [67] - you may want to note the comment I left at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#New_evidence. Neıl ☄ 11:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I explained more under your comment. Thanks. Cla68 ( talk) 11:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the explanation. Neıl ☄ 12:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68, I noticed that you revert vandalism. Occasionally, but correctly overall. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make vandal-reverting a little easier for you? Just remember that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and that misuse (either by reverting good-faith edits or revert-warring with the tool) can lead to its removal. Tell me what you think. Thanks. Acalamari 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the offer, but I don't think I need rollback right now. Thanks again though. Cla68 ( talk) 21:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

That's perfectly fine. Thank you for your response. Best wishes. Acalamari 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I replied at my talk page regarding my latest screwup. In short, I removed the threat, but feel free to block me for screwing up. -- Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for formatting the references.-- Poetlister 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply

After reading about his life and what value he gave to humanity, it's the least I could do. I hope to help out more in the future as time allows. Cla68 ( talk)

By all means add an infobox please.-- Poetlister 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla, I saw your post on Kelly's page. I'd say that problems with the articles continue so your getting involved now would be good. Especially since I angered Kelly enough that she has gone on wikibreak - s/he was the editor in the mess that was doing the best. There is another editor that is skating far too close to the BLP lines for my comfort - and I'm slow to act on BLP issues.

John Edwards has mostly settled down, except for the current multi-article reverting over inclusion/exclusion of the baby's name. John Edwards extramarital affair is still being frequently and actively edited, but except for that multi-article reverting currently appears non-contentious. Rielle Hunter is being actively edited, has been part of the multi-article reverting, has in my view other problems, and has the added twist of being edited by an editor believed to be a member of the subject's family. (I have not tracked down the diffs to confirm that such a claim has been made by the editor.) Story of My Life (novel) is being semi-actively edited, was not part of the multi-article reverting, and has in my view problems. GRBerry 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure, I'll try to help out with them. Cla68 ( talk) 04:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

As I was somewhat expecting, a new loosely related article has been created. Horse murders. It has different problems, likely at this time including being unbalanced due to incompleteness and hasty creation. GRBerry 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Pleae list those "problems" on the article's talk page so they can be addresed. Please be specific. catherine yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 ( talk) 22:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Kelly has now suggested a few more related articles on my talk page, all of which I have watchlisted. The ones that currently have related content are Andrew Young (political operative) and Frederick Baron. GRBerry 15:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

What do you think of this: WP:WOLF? Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

As I already noted my memory was slightly hazy about what exactly he did. To call that a lie is both unproductive and uncivil. Its the context where people who are cooperating with each other to try to come to a best result would say "I think you are misremembering. He didn't do Y. He did X". JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

When we talk about real, live people, we have to be careful to tell the truth. What you said was a gross exaggeration about a real person did. Cla68 ( talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh grow up. Even if that were the case (and it wasn't because the too offenses are about the same level of disgustigness. It isn't a gross exaggeration.) And to then say that's a lie and to then not correct the individual knowing full well what happened is at best tendentious. That means you knew what was being misremembered and rather than clarify in a way that might possibly help the discussion you decided to simply call another user a liar. That's really helpful for all of us to share data and get some idea about what should happen. There's a difference between heated argument and advocacy and you clearly stepped way over that line. JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla68, the most horrifyingly inaccurate aspect of JoshuaZ's quotation is the following: "after the user (Durova) tried to engage in good-faith dialogue". From my perspective, that never happened, being that she made a statement about Kohs' interaction with the press, was called to task on its accuracy, murmurred that she thought she read something to that effect in the Signpost, then when called to task about that, only began to generate a body of "evidence" which she then refused to share directly with the accused. How that is in any way "good-faith dialogue", I cannot imagine. - No Indexer ( talk) 02:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Please WP:AGF. That's clearly one of the things Joshua's memory is hazy over. Minkythecat ( talk) 06:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

<undent> Cla, while I'm willing to believe that this accusation was made in the heat of the moment, it's clearly a personal attack on an editor's integrity and grossly uncivil, as well as being an obvious failure to assume good faith. Your response does nothing to correct that incivility, so I strongly urge you to strike that original accusation and add a statement that you accept that JoshuaZ made an error in good faith. . . dave souza, talk 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

If it was the only instance of lying, then you would be right that my reaction was too strong. Unfortunately, however, there's a history. Here [68], on Wikien, he states, "Spend too much time on WR and you'll forget what these people have tried to do to Wikipedia and the lives they've ruined in the process." Whose "lives" have been ruined? If you prefer the term gross exaggeration, that's an example of another one. Cla68 ( talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla, I'm simply asking you to act in civil manner. You'll find it helps your arguments rather than detracts from them. . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't agree that it was incivil. Direct, to the point, and addressing the behavior, not the person. But, I appreciate your concern. Cla68 ( talk) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla, to be clear I completely stand by that statement. And if you don't think that peoples lives have been ruined by users on WR then your simply divorced from reality. I could list many examples but the most obvious is the recent return of Newyorkbrad. Any recall about how he got blackmailed to leave? And that's just one of many examples. JoshuaZ ( talk) 23:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

WR is not responsible for the actions of either Brandt or thatproducerwho'snameicannotrecall. I also strongly disagree with your assertion that anyone's "life has been ruined" Viridae ^Talk 00:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The producer's name is Don Murphy. Thanks for providing another example. And Viridae, I agree with you that WR as a whole isn't responsible. That would be like blaming Wikipedia as a whole for every time someone puts in incorrect info. The statement, if it wasn't clear enough, is that people who frequent WR have ruined peoples lives. WR like any webforum isn't going to be a monolith, there are people there like you Viridae who I have tremendous respect fo). Frankly, if you don't think that Don Murphy and Brandt haven't ruined anyones lives then you haven't been paying attention. You might want to for starters look into why H left. After Murphy outed his name, Murphy's followers and others called his wife and eldery relatives and harassed them. Katefan left because Brandt harassed her about her real-life occupation. And there are many other examples. You can't just turn a blind eye to that fact. And Brandt and Murphy are not the only examples of people who have done that sort of crap. Merely the most prominent. But this is all highly irrelevant to the point at hand; we can agree or disagree about the merits of WR (I don't think any of us think it is perfect and I don't think any of think it is the center of hell). This entire matter is really a distraction thrown up from my original message. If Cla68 can't understand this then we have a serious problem. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

JoshuaZ, I have been here long enough to remember User:H's previous account. At one time, he had his full name and location on his user page. Brandt did not out him. He confirmed that himself about 16 months ago during talk page discussions on WP:NPA. Murphy's harassment of H and his family was very disturbing, but at that time Murphy was not a member of Wikipedia Review. And it is disingenuous to suggest that he left for any significant duration; he has changed usernames and continues to actively participate in Wikipedia. Risker ( talk) 08:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

So now I need to figure out exactly at what times Murphy is and is not posting to WR? Be reasonable. Moreover, the fact that he changed his username, and then left again after that username was outed might suggest that maybe you aren't looking at the situation very rationally. He was threatened at home. Thankfully for this project, he reappeared under another name. Let's not kid around about what that did. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No, JoshuaZ, I simply expect that when you make negative statements about groups or individuals as if they are facts, that you actually ensure that they are indeed facts. It took less than a minute for me to confirm that Murphy didn't join Wikipedia Review until long after the events you mention related to User:H, who in fact never stopped editing but had already created his next account before justifiably abandoning the User:H one. I agree that what Murphy did was despicable, but it had nothing to do with Wikipedia Review. And I think User:H has addressed the harassment situation, both at the time and subsequently, with dignity and integrity; please don't take that away from him. Risker ( talk) 19:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You now appear to be qualifying that statement, although you point to NewYorkBrad (NYB) as an example. The problem with that is that you made that statment before NYB took a wikibreak. Also, I haven't seen NYB say anywhere, in Wikipedia or in one of his many posts on WR, that he feels that his life was "ruined." Here's the thing, we're often, rightfully, held accountable for our statements, including me [69]. So, make sure when you say something that it's accurate, verifiable, and not a gross exaggeration of what the truth really is. Cla68 ( talk) 07:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla68, the bottom line is that at this point you are grasping at straws. You complain that when I substantiate a I decided to use a recent example of Brad rather than earlier ones such as Katefan. Meanwhile, you argue over the semantics of "ruined". Yes, I suppose if someone didn't have their life totally destroyed and didn't explicitly use the word "ruined" then I shouldn't use that word, under any circumstances. What euphemism would you prefer? "extreme stress". JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

People who condemn WR like to use a rhetorical technique of bringing forth a "parade of horrors" that the site is supposedly responsible for, where no actual fact-checking is needed; your own vague and subjective recollection of some incident that you experienced only second- or third-hand through the biased accounts written by involved parties is sufficient, and anything bad that can be pinned on anybody who has ever had any association with WR can then be applied transitively to the site itself and all of its other users. I know the mindset, since I had it myself back before I was active in that site, and I was one of those badmouthing it. *Dan T.* ( talk) 18:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Some fraction of these are valid points and I'll need to think about this more. I will likely have a longer reply sometime later. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, per earlier promise now responding. There are as I far as I can see a variety of relevant points. I'm going to respond to all of them in this single post and will hopefully be clear about what I am responding to in which part. First, most of this discussion is utterly irrelevant to the point at hand. The discussion has become a general discussion about WR rather than a specific claim about a specific user and Cla68's inappropriate response to that matter. So let's divide the question. Whether or not Cla68 thinks that months ago I made an off-the-cuff comment about WR that he disagrees with is utterly irrelevant to the central point of my original message which still stands: Cla68 knew what happened, knew I had made a mistake and then rather than try to helpfully clarify for concerned users simply claimed that "JoshuaZ is lying". There's moreover a terrible element of glass-house stone-throwing here because a few minutes later Cla68 being intimately familiar with what actually happened tried to downplay it and claimed that Kohs had only made a picture of Durova's face superimposed on clothing [70]. To accuse another individual of lying and then to make a highly misleading statement on the matter isn't helpful to anyone. The bottom line is that in that conversation, as in all conversations on Wikipedia, we should be working together to assemble relevant information. Cla68's behavior most closely resembles a combination of mudslinging and advocacy-work for Greg Kohs, not trying to take part in a serious discussion about what should be done. Indeed Cla68, your behavior in this matter seems to be exactly what I was talking about in the post in question: advocating for users simply because they are banned or because you perceive them as an underdog. And again note the style of advocacy we are talking about: deceptive, assuming cabals and bad faith everywhere and engaging in incivil and insulting remarks. That's not good.

Now, moving on to the side matter of my opinion about WR: Contrary to any claims by Dan it should be obvious that I don't think that WR is a living incarnation of evil. WR isn't a monolith anymore than Wikipedia is. Nor I have claimed that somehow posting once on WR makes someone evil (WR is serving at least one useful purpose in having a forum where everyone, even banned users can talk and lay out their grievances). (Dan might recall that I was one of the people who generally agreed with Dan on his pet issue (which I'm slightly surprised he hasn't mentioned yet). That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of crap on WR. There is. And it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of jerks on WR. There are. And moreover, it definitely doesn't mean that spending time talking to the jerks can cause some of their ill-will and distorted view of things to rub off on one if one is not careful. It can. Obviously, Dan edits there. Alison and Lar edit there. So we have a fair number of people who aren't bad people, who indeed are good editors. (My impression is that the general quality of editor at WR has gone up quite a bit in the last 2 years. I don't know if my opinions about WR have adjusted quickly enough to that rise). But it doesn't require a parade of horribles to see that users on WR such as Bagley, Brandt and Kohs have engaged in pretty despicable behavior that has caused stress and harm to people in real life. The problem isn't "second- or third-hand... biased accounts" in getting details wrong. The problem is that there have been so many incidents that after a while they blur. And that doesn't speak highly of anyone at all. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you take a look at Ishin-denshin? It could use some expansion by someone with more familiarity with the topic. Also, I'm pretty sure there should be a link to it from Mokusatsu (specifically relating to its usage during World War II vis-a-vis Japan's surrender) and possibly Surrender of Japan. Raul654 ( talk) 07:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I added a citation to Mokusatsu, it looks like it was referenced almost completely from Toland's book. I've started looking through my personal library of Japanese language and culture books to try to find more information on Ishin-denshin. I've done some original research with that phrase, my wife says I misuse it everytime I try to use it daily conversation. Cla68 ( talk) 10:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You may be interested in WP:AN#User Kelly (and others) attack campaign (IDCab meme). KillerChihuahua ^?!? 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

That discussion doesn't appear to be going the way that perhaps you were hoping it would. I don't have anything to add to it that hasn't already been said. Thank you, though, for letting me know about it. Cla68 ( talk) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Now that you've shown up there, may I just make a suggestion, in the interests of not needing asbestos underwear, the linking of the OM ArbCom with the link name being "adult supervision" isn't probably that helpful. SirFozzie ( talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I guess mentorship is a more polite way to phrase it. Cla68 ( talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What a freak'n waste of time thread. While I agree that the perception of a cabal of several users exists, it is much like Godwin's Law now, in that any progress of a discussion falls apart once the 'cabal' arguements get used. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I really don't like that characterisation. I myself am a member of a group of editors who share similar interests and tend to edit similar pages, sometimes in a coordinated fashion. If this were a more contentious area then I'm sure we might be labeled as a cabal. However, this really isn't a productive way to deal with other editors and I'd be grateful, Cla68, if you didn't support people who try to do this. We've both had experience of people throwing false accusations around like they were spreading fertiliser, so I've lost a lot of my patience when I see this happening elsewhere. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The problem with these guys isn't that they have a similar interest in topics, as I said in the RfC [71], as long as the policies and guidelines are followed, there isn't a problem. Unfortunately, as noted by many others, these guys just don't seem to get how to relate to editors who disagree with them. Although the group bullying they've used in the past (see my talk page for some examples) appears to be diminishing, it still hasn't completely disappeared [72] [73]. Two or three of them still show up on user and forum talk pages and leave rude comments. It needs to stop. But, you're right that name calling probably won't help the situation that much. Cla68 ( talk) 20:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

If there is bad behavior, confront the behavior. I could legitimately claim that most of the articles I edit are the target of a shadowy cabal of IP editors who are unusually and vocally proud of their gay friends! However, guessing about people's motivation is always a mistake since it deflects the attention of other people looking at the problem from the matter in hand. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note you left at my talk page. I read the pages you noted, which was extremely disheartening. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode ( talk) 02:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

If you'd like to see more, I suggest also reading through the threads that are currently on my user talk page. In spite of all this, however, there are places here where editors are really trying to build an encyclopedia in a cordial and cooperative way, such as at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Good article nominations, and Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter. Cla68 ( talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I get what you're saying - it's a good decision for Wikipedia, so Wikipedians have won, so you as a Wikipedian have won. Still some might find it a little too self congratulatory coming from one of the people sanctioned/cautioned/whatevered in the whole thing. Really might be wise to strike your comments and to focus on your own mistakes in all this (of which I know you've acknowledged some)and in particular not to rise to any comments from Jayjg. That might help to prevent a feeling of ongoing conflict, in the best interests of WP and of yourself. Just a thought, worth what you paid for it etc. etc. 87.254.68.5 ( talk) 21:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your concern and hope to give a full explanation. As this case draws to a close, I and some others have been discussing some of the long-term ramifications of this case on an off-site forum. NYB and JPGordon were apparently commenting on some dicussion there that I was involved in, so I felt like I should add some information on where I'm coming from in the attitute behind some of my comments, and it was also in response to this [74] comment by KimvdLinde. I'll explain in detail here, and then hopefully the case will close soon and this entire chapter can be closed.

1. Wikipedia is a volunteer project (I know we all know that but I'm building my reasoning here).

2. As volunteers, we don't (at least I don't) necessarily expect any reward or even appreciation for what we're doing here, except perhaps some inner-satisfaction for contributing to something of benefit to the world. In my case I am happy and satisfied to write some articles about military history that are apparently being read, judging by the numbers tool linked to on my userpage, by many thousands of other people.

3. But, as volunteers, we expect that others here who are abusing the rules, policies, guidelines, processes, and/or other volunteer editors will be stopped, corrected, or sent packing.

4. If #3 doesn't occur, I expect that our valued volunteer editors will become frustrated, unhappy, and disillusioned, and may depart or scale down their participation.

5. An example is the editor I mentioned above, KimvdLinde, a very good editor of science and other articles. As stated on her userpage, she has reduced her time committed to Wikipedia for reasons she explains there. While compiling evidence for this case, I found in the past where one of the parties in this case had treated Kim, IMO, in an extremely despicable and absolutely unnaceptable and undeserved manner. Was anything done to redress the behavior of the editor who treated Kim this way at that time? No, not at all, in spite of Kim's attempts to seek redress.

6. Looking at the evidence presented on the case page, including mine, SandyGeorgia's, and several others, I think it is evident that several of our fellow volunteers, many of them admins, have been flouting our policies and guidelines concerning editor decorum and behavior for some time. Perusing the diffs in the evidence section quickly shows that Kim is not the only editor to have been surprised, offended, shocked, and frustrated after being treated this way for apparently no good reason.

7. One of the parties in this case even openly announced that retaliation was forthcoming by him and others in a group of admins because one of our best content editors had earned his disapproval [75]. Another party in this case soon helped reinforce this threat [76]. Was anything done about this undeserved bullying of one our best content editors? No, not at that time.

8. Now, we come to this case. This case comes after two, almost three years of this nonsense occurring. Imagine the frustration of these editors who have had to try and remain motivated to contribute to this project after enduring this treatement while the editors, most of them admins, who subjected them to it continue on with the same behavior, apparently without fear of sanction or corrective action.

9. As the case was ongoing, could you sense the frustration boiling out on the talk pages of the case? I observed even more of it, in the emails I received from people. What really, really bothered me was that many of them had no confidence that the ArbCom would correct the situation, so they felt their input needed to remain hidden in order to escape retaliation and bullying from a group of editors in this project. Their fears and feelings of helplessness have made me feel like someone needed to speak for them, to make sure that everyone knew that this situation was absolutely unacceptable and could not, not on any condition, be allowed to continue. It also made me angry. Of course, my own experience with my first RfA was also probably a contributor, since I had also experienced what happens when you cross certain editors in that group.

10. How did a volunteer project come to have a situation like this, where editors were scared to cross a group of other editors, most of them admins, who were apparently operating however they wanted to without fear of retribution?

11. Well, as this case draws to a close, I hope that the situation is now fixed, corrected, resolved, and of nothing more now than historical interest. After NYB's comments about winners, I just wanted to make sure the he understood what I feel to be the "winning" side here. I also wanted to say so publicly, not for my sake, but to let everyone know clearly that this terrible situation which had existed has been discovered, brought into the open, debated, criticized, and hopefully shattered, from which it will never bother us again.

12. I appreciate the arbitrators attention on the matter and effort to finally fix the situation. I look forward, as I said, to never having to mention it again unless for good reason it has to be, which I really hope not. Cla68 ( talk) 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Right on, brother. Nobody could have explained it better. Kelly ^hi! 23:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding you note at my talk, no problem. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You are one of the masters of the art form of the Featured Article--any chance I could entice you to take a copyediting/language look at The Greencards? rootology ( C)( T) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, Root - hasn't this been up for FA before? I seem to recall reviewing the image copyrights back when I was still helping out at WP:FAC - at least they look familiar. I think the article looks great but I am dismal at the Manual of Style. Kelly ^hi! 15:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It was up twice (the second time too soon) here and here, and for peer review. Myself and Andreasegde did a lot of cleanup, but I think it still needs a lot more... I don't want to FA it again until it's bulletproof. rootology ( C)( T) 16:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure, I'll look at it. But, I don't have much experience with articles about music bands. Cla68 ( talk) 19:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry it has taken me so long to get to it. I'll try for tomorrow. Cla68 ( talk) 07:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Why apologize? International travel > me. :P Thank you! And if helps: I've forked the lead members to trim down the early history section a bit (I just haven't removed it from the parent article yet--I just replicated so far). rootology ( C)( T) 23:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

As requested, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Greencards, I just tried again. Wish it luck! rootology ( C)( T) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. FeloniousMonk may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in the decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described in the findings of fact, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct. The Committee provides a list of six behavioural issues ( click to read) which the parties in the case are "specifically instructed" to ensure that their future editing complies with. The Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances.

The Committee also notes that editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles. Furthermore, the Committee acknowledges the extraordinary duration of this case. Whilst there have been reasons for this to arise, an overall apology is due, and given.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel ( talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

In related news, Stonehenge has been built and the Great Pyramid of Giza has been completed. Kelly ^hi! 01:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

As I said in the block log, I put my block up for review on ANI, or rather am In the process of doing so. Please migrate any discussionthere.-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I just noticed the ANI discussion. Cla68 ( talk) 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

In light of the arbitration decision and in the spirit of your recent comments about it, I think it would be best if you made every effort not to refer to SlimVirgin further and certainly if you did not post in her userspace. This will be a helpful contribution to defusing the tensions so everyone can get back to more productive pursuits. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

If anyone tries to further promote the idea that the recent case had anything to do with Poetlister, I will protest that visibly and vigorously. Otherwise, I have no problem with what you're requesting. Cla68 ( talk) 23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I've talked to a few Japanese about Japan, but they seemed reluctant to open up. What do you think about Japan, its culture..... I'm fascinated by their conformity and the way the "nail that sticks up is hammered down." It's also interesting in light of Thailand, which is also Asian, but the people there seem to have such an incredible belief of self. I wonder what has caused the mindsets of the people in these two countries to be so different. What do you think? Scifiintel ( talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

In my experience, the Japanese only make an effort to conform to the perceived mores or rules of the group that they happen to be participating within at any given moment. Outside of that, they are as individualistic and self-aware as anyone else in any other country, although they aren't as open about it in public as some other societies, like, for example, Americans. Each culture in east Asia is almost completely different from the others. If you try to compare, for example, Korean (where I lived for one year) culture with Japanese, you're not going to find that many similarities, although there are some, such as the Confucius-inspired philosophy of an individual's responsibility and duty to family. Of all the different cultures in East Asia, I think the two most different from each other are the Philippines and Japan. Cla68 ( talk) 04:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for sharing your knowledge with me. What do you think is different about the Philippines and Japan? Scifiintel ( talk) 00:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

[77] Cla68, please reconsider filing this. There is no good that can come of it, for anyone. It is not within the power of the Arbitration Committee to make that finding. For everyone's sake, please withdraw this. Risker ( talk) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I do have strong personal feelings on the matter. I'm not going to withdraw it, however, I am going to go on a break and come back in a few days. You all can sort it out amongst yourselves. I believe Wikipedia needs to make a statement that this garbage is NOT tolerated, and we ARE willing to publicly call out a real person when they abuse our trust and what we're trying to do here. That's it, I'm signing off. If anyone has any questions for me, email me or post on my talk page, I'll check it once or twice a day. Cla68 ( talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, I'm calmed down now. Sorry. [78]. Cla68 ( talk) 03:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Cla68. No need to be sorry, I understand your frustration. Risker ( talk) 03:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I was wondering whether you had the original source for that FPC you're running. It's a fantastic document. If the technical side could get a boost I'd love to change to support. Not much I can to with that particular file, though. Durova ^Charge! 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think your objections to that image were valid and I'm not upset about it. I'm not sure what I can do to fix it. The document that it comes from has a lot of excellent images that I hope to nominate in the future after they are placed in appropriate articles. Cla68 ( talk) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for your help! Sandy just bumped The Greencards to FA status. :) rootology ( C)( T) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Please, please, please do not start a giant RfC regarding FlaggedRevs. There is a fair bit of discussion that taken place over years and a giant RfC would be disastrous. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

What would you suggest instead to get things moving on it? Cla68 ( talk) 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Logical_Premise/editorluv
Thought you might want to know about these personal attacks.
Messengerbot ( talk) 21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Logical Premise/editorluv. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Although you have not edited the article (as best as I can tell), your comments and participation will be useful and healthy to the project. In other words, please don't sit on the sidelines, but help fix this article. I'm making a personal request. This will be cathartic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

My issue is not whether the information is supported by reliable sources but as to whether the information should be included about an otherwise non-notable person. Editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability - that the information is sourced for reliable sources doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion. Please refer to the subsection of WP:BLP that deals with biographies of otherwise non-notable people at WP:NPF -- Matilda ^talk 03:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, the fact that Joe the Plumber has a few skeletons in his closet is one of the reasons for his notability. The media is having a field day with it all. The Washington Post mentions his tax problems [79]. So, in this case, using those tax lien documents as a primary source is fine. Cla68 ( talk) 06:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Replied on my talk page -- Matilda ^talk 06:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

With secret cases it's hard to know what or who they're talking about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

True. But, Kirill, Bainer, and FT2 made sure it was clear who they were talking to. Cla68 ( talk) 06:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It'd be good if folks who want to be understood spoke clearly. All of this mystery is unhelpful, and against the better traditions of Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Just please notice, Will, that the complaining editors haven't waived the privacy issue, but have only raised certain points relating to confidential discussions. Lar specifically offered an open discussion, which Tom harrison called an unacceptable threat, and to which Wikitumnus did not respond. If you'd like to criticize the decision to hold a private case, I think you'd need to be more specific about how to address this, and preferably acknowledge the unacceptability of requiring confidentiality for just one side. Mackan79 ( talk) 07:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I know you were going to get started on the international reaction to Naked Short Selling. Hope you don't mind that I beat you to the punch (I went with an old section I had kicked around on NSS's talk page, updated with the Nikkei stuff), but please, edit/add/subtract to what I did mercilessly. Have a good one! SirFozzie ( talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. Thanks for getting that started. I added another paragraph using a different source to give a little more depth to Japan's involvement [80]. Cla68 ( talk) 06:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

If you wish to ask my views on this, please restate the question in a way that doesn't personalize it. For example, you might want to ask if there are valid reasons for admins to protect pages in their own User: space. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I could have asked you the same question in that ANI thread, which would have presumably prevented you from immediately removing it [81]. Since you're one of the only ones that I saw in that thread who was objecting to ChrisO's use of the admin tools to protect a subpage in his userspace, it's not personalizing it to ask you if you've done the same thing. Cla68 ( talk) 07:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Per this discussion, I'm hoping you'll be interested in being interviewed for the Dispatch, to be published in the Signpost within a few weeks. I started a temp page at Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFAN. Usually, the format is that interviewees drop in some text and Tony1 or Jbmurray copyedit, but I suspect that we won't need copyediting and trimming here, so I see it as more of a pick and choose, narrowing down responses only if needed. The goal is to highlight your work, and to guide, inspire and motivate other writers. If you're interested, dig in ! If not, just leave a note on the talk page of that temp page and I'll remove you. I'll tentatively aim for the November 24th Signpost. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I was aware that you and NYB, as well as other great contributors, use WR. That's acceptable, however much I think it's detrimental to to the project...unless you want to be on ArbCom. I personally think it's a cesspool, and I don't trust anyone who spends a lot of time there to have that much power in their hands. Steven Walling (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

BADSITES paranoia will never go away, it seems. *Dan T.* ( talk) 03:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Why do you think it's a cesspool, based on what's been going on over there in, say, the last 6 months? Fritzpoll ( talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Since the demise of Wikback, WR is basically the only significant independent forum for discussion of Wikipedia, and there's always value in the existence of a non-house-organ forum, even if a lot of what goes there is silly. *Dan T.* ( talk) 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

If I made a list of all the problems that were going on in Wikipedia which were discovered, highlighted, or exposed first on WR before being subsequently addressed here it would be a fairly long list. One of the reasons for WR's success in this aspect is that it is an open, independent forum whose members include banned editors, observers who don't actively participate in any Wikimedia projects, semi-active Wikipedia editors, and very active Wikipedia editors, administrators, and even a few arbitrators. Of course not everything discussed there is correct or even above-board. That's the nature of an open, independent forum. But, a blanket condemnation of the entire site is silly and, in my opinion, cultlike. Cultlike because it exhibits a bunker mentality against outside criticism. I remember reading somewhere that an indication that a city is operating an effective rapid transit system is how many websites exist criticizing it. If Wikipedia was irrelevant, then WR wouldn't have as many participants and wouldn't have the impact that it has. We're fortunate to have an outside critique site that to help us run this project. Cla68 ( talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Very well said. I'd also add: if WR went away tomorrow, something else would eventually take its place: Wikipedia is part of the mainstream now, and criticism is inevitable. In fact, as you (Cla) allude to, criticism often helps the project to correct its deficiencies.

And I also agree that the occasional abuses that occur there are inevitable if openness is to be preserved. I think of WR abuses as the analog to Wikipedia POV pushing: POV pushing is impossible to eliminate completely without putting the entire project into lockdown and having every edit placed under scrutiny, so it's a necessary evil side effect of Wikipedia's openness; WR abuses are similarly a by product of the openness required to be a true criticism site. ATren ( talk) 14:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Ohai Cla68, I see that you are listed towards the top of this page, which means you have experience with article writing and expanding articles -- getting them featured. I'd like you to check out the WikiCup, beginning in January for the fourth cup. aye matthew ✡ 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't have anything against what's going on there, I just don't usually participate in competitions like that. Thanks for the invite, though. Cla68 ( talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

For your kind words at my ArbCom.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Cla, with respect to this comment, do you have knowledge that this was Coredesat? Because it's signed by an IP and there was no indication it came from him. ATren ( talk) 20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I saw Cordesat's signature on it. Cordesat participated in a thread on WR where it was linked, and didn't mention that it wasn't by him. Cla68 ( talk) 21:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, I wasn't disputing it, I was just wondering how you knew - I thought perhaps you just misread the diff. In any case I see you've clarified anyway so it's moot. :-) ATren ( talk) 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It's just not your day! (I'm not restoring your vote, in case I'm misunderstanding this). PaddyLeahy ( talk) 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't know what that's all about, but it's no big deal. Cla68 ( talk) 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've no desire to get into a Giano argument with you or anyone. But I was a little mistified by your comment on the RfC and I've made some observations here. I'd be interested in your reply (in general and not "about Giano"). Thanks.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 10:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Prem Rawat and related articles are under probation. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat. Please seek consensus on the article talk page before making contentious edits.   Will Beback  talk  10:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

PS: See also Bibliography_of_Prem_Rawat_and_related_organizations, Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars, Talk:Prem_Rawat/journalists, Talk:Prem_Rawat/Lifestyle, Talk:Prem Rawat/References, etc.   Will Beback  talk  10:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I posted my opinion of the whole situation here. Cla68 ( talk) 23:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.

It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Have a look at the page history rather than just the edit summary. It's not a BLP violation, and the IP has (under various IPs from the same range, and under an account) been in a slowmotion edit war for months - two blocks have already been handed out, he's been told to take it to MfD, but he simply continues to pop up every couple of days to blank it. _Gb ^{T/ c} 10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I would suggest that you take the time to understand a bit about the background. _Gb ^{T/ c} 10:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Gb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is something I have highly mixed and conflicted feelings about. On the one hand, I don't like that sort of bigotry aimed at criticism sites like WR and the alleged "trolls" that inhabit it, but on the other hand I'm a strong advocate of free speech, including the right to rant on your own user page, and think attempts to suppress such rants are in the same vein as the BADSITES policy I strongly opposed. On the third hand (I'm a mutant), I dislike the hypocrisy whereby user page rants get suppressed if they run afoul with the views of the dominant clique but are suppported and defended if they're on the "politically correct" side; this goose-and-gander situation could theoretically be resolved either by allowing all rants or suppressing all of them. *Dan T.* ( talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't have any problems with userpage rants, I believe I've done it myself a couple of times, except in this type of situation. Our NPA and BLP rules are fairly clear, and justifiably so, that you can't insult people, especially by their real names. I know it's a slippery slope in trying to define the line between what is allowed and what isn't. Cla68 ( talk) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You would be well-advised to mind your own business about things that don't concern you. Admittedly, that obvious principle has never even slowed you down before, but it's worth reiterating. -- Calton | Talk 09:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

There's a bit of irony to your boasting on your user page of being on a mission of "eliminating spam and MySpaceLight pages disguised as user pages", while objecting vociferously to others removing what they see as objectionable material from your user page. The question, I guess, is who gets to decide what user page material is OK and which is deletion-worthy? *Dan T.* ( talk) 17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, the Prem Rawat issues at AE have moved to RFAR. Bainer suggested inviting the uninvolved admins to comment. The thread is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem_Rawat_2; your input is welcome (you're definitely experienced even if you don't have the mop). Best wishes, Durova ^Charge! 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

§hep ^Talk 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Would you be interested in writing up some coverage of the "General user conduct" Rfcs that are currently open for March 2? §hep ^Talk 07:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, the editor decided he didn't want the Post to include user conduct RfCs. Too bad he didn't comment at WT:POST it would have saved you the time you took to write that up. If you ever see a discussion going on that needs some light (non-user conduct) please drop it on the Suggestions page and I'll be sure to take a look. Thanks, §hep ^Talk 08:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, of course, the guy who likes to cavort with the whack-jobs, loons, spammers, trolls, sociopaths, and other bad actors at Wikipedia Review and then come to Wikipedia to carry water for them deigns to give me advice about appropriate behavior. "Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" is the old expression. Hope you have plenty of flea powder. -- Calton | Talk 13:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Have you been through the maps collection at the Library of Congress? [82] It's hit or miss what you'll find there, but when they're good they're really good. For example, this map of the water supply for Kobe, Japan [83] which is insanely high resolution. The subject might seem kind of boring until you notice who made it and when. I'm just not sure where to place something like that, but have a look and drop word at my user talk if you find one you can use. Best wishes, Durova ^Charge! 17:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the link. I need to go through those and see if there are any I could use for any articles I'm working on. Cla68 ( talk) 01:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I have done a restoration on a Japanese woodcut about the Russo-Japanese War. It is an excellent high resolution file, and I will be nominating it for featured status. I think it will make a great candidate. I would love to have a translation, and I would be more than happy to share featured credit with the translator. You came recommended on the MILHIST talk page. Are you interested? Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

My knowledge of Japanese isn't good enough to translate this. I do, however, know a few people who are fluent in Japanese over at WP:JAPAN and I'll ask them to translate it. Cla68 ( talk) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks like you're well ahead of me. Cla68 ( talk) 21:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks anyway! Have a wonderful week. — Jake Wartenberg 03:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Replied to you on Smasthestate's page. I strongly suggest you read what people write before accusing them of things they didn't do. Reread what I wrote to Smash. I'm particularly curious as to how I can have helped put in information that was added after my last edit to a page or its talk page. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, Smash has been an editor since August 2006 so the claim that there has been any biting of a new user is puzzling. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Ahem. And he has only been a sporadic editor [84], therefore, "not established". Cla68 ( talk) 00:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I've replied on Smash's page. Maybe we can keep this in one place? I especially don't think you want a detailed discussion of the differences between "Israeli" and "Jewish" on your talk page. (Replying to the issue of biting a newb since that is more relevant here than there, the user in question has over 250 edits. That's hardly a newbie. And if someone is going to persist in making factually incorrect accusations (as you seem to continue to do as well) then one can hardly consider it biting to provide a detailed explanation of why they are wrong. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

We seem to be talking past each other here. I'm not accusing you of using a certain phrase, just to restoring information which STS tried to tell us was wrong, and we didn't listen to him until the French newspaper in question printed a retraction and apologized. We were wrong not to have listened to him more carefully. Cla68 ( talk) 00:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Please read what I'm writing. The "certain phrase" is precisely what matters. We have and continue to have in the article the phrase Israel lobby. We don't have the phrase Jewish lobby. The phrase is what matters. I restored the phrase "Israel lobby" which remains well-sourced and in the article. The phrase "Jewish lobby" turned out to be in error. This phrase was added after I edited the article. You may not appreciate the difference in phrasing but it matters a lot. The phrase "Jewish lobby" is antisemitic. The phrase "Israel lobby" is possibly not (some might claim it is a codeword for "Jewish lobby but that's the only connection). Israeli and Jewish are very different things. If you think otherwise I suggest you go conflate the two to an Israeli Arab living in Tel Aviv. See how he reacts. Frankly, your failure to understand why this distinction is both important and highly relevant seems indicative of jumping into a situation where you really have no idea what is going on. To conflate the two is culturally insensitive and demonstrates profound ignorance of Middle Eastern geopolitics. Incidentally, we weren't wrong to not listen to Smash. His general editing at the article has been to consistently whitewash it. Look for example at his attempt to change Israel lobby to "Zionist lobby" yet a third term with yet a different meaning and set of connotations. To be blunt, you don't understand the issues at hand. I suggest you go find something else to pontificate. JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Not to pile on, but Jewish Lobby is anti-Semitic, plain and simple. If we assume "Jewish" is a religion, then shall we contend that there is a "Catholic Lobby" that made sure stem cells could not be used in research or that attempts to make abortion illegal? If we assume "Jewish" is an ethnic designation, then is there a "White Lobby" trying to eliminate Title IX? I probably could care less one way or another about "Israel Lobby", but Jewish Lobby is definitely offensive, especially in the context of this article. Though we do not usually consider Wikipedia a reliable source, the article Jewish lobby has several very good reliable sources in the reference section. When Hamas makes claims that the Jewish Lobby is responsible for the current financial crisis, we can assume that it's pejorative. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your kind words on the rodeo fiasco. It's been, er, well, a real rodeo. Sigh... and thanks! Montanabw ^(talk) 06:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Appreciation again. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your help in advancing civilization is much appreciated. -- Noroton :  Chat  03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

As Doc glasgow said, have Kohls e-mail or write a letter if he needs to contact Jimbo. Everything else is proxying for a banned editor. KnightLago ( talk) 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You wrote here: And yes, I am canvassing off-wiki for support for the deletion. Is there a chance you are going to clarify that comment? JoshuaZ ( talk) 16:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Uh, he posted about an AFD off wiki he likes to see deleted. WR == off wiki. spryde | talk 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I was publicizing the AfD off-site. When it comes to BLPs on marginally notable subjects which I feel are subject to abuse, I am willing to openly canvass for support for their deletion. Wikipedia has a serious problem with the way its currently structured regarding these types of article, and there doesn't currently seem to be an imminent fix. Cla68 ( talk) 20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Charming. I've brought the matter up at ANI. [85]. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Formal warning - do not canvass

You know that your actions here were in violation of WP:CANVASS - you admitted you're doing it.

That's not acceptable behavior. It's violating that policy and intentional disruption.

Please stop that immediately and do not do it again. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

[86] [87]. I'll post this at ANI also. Cla68 ( talk) 01:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Blocked for 48 hrs

You were warned above that your canvassing was violating WP:CANVASS and disruptive. After that warning was made, you intentionally did it again on another article.

You have been blocked from editing for 48 hrs.

I don't know why you chose to do this - it's not helpful to your cause of trying to move community policy against marginal BLPs. All you're doing is increasing drama by having done this. Please don't continue this type of escalation. It's heat without light - not helping solve the problem you claim you want to solve.

If you will agree to knock it off and continue editing / nominating / etc without violating WP:CANVASS or other policy then I'm sure that I and other editors will be happy to reduce the block length. But if you're going to keep intentionally breaking policy and disrupting the community, this is not going to help you or your causes.

Please reconsider your course here. This was unnecessarily confrontational and not at all useful or constructive to your goals. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

{{ unblock|I carefully read the CANVASS policy, and it mentions using secret means, such as email, as prohibited. The policy mainly addresses on-wiki canvassing, and mentions off-wiki only in passing, and doesn't mention off-site, openly accessible forums, like Wikipedia Review. According to how the CANVASS policy is currently written, my post was not a violation.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I agree with Cla's analysis and I don't think a consensus to block exists. Request handled by: ++ Lar: t/ c 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

++ Lar: t/ c 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Note: YellowMonkey actually did the unblock, I think while I was posting this or thereabouts. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you both. How long until the autoblock expires? Cla68 ( talk) 05:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually: undone. Viridae ^Talk 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Not many MILHIST folks made a fuss. Disappointing. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 06:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I assume that they were all busy actually writing some articles. Cla68 ( talk) 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• I really wish I'd gone to that AfD and voted against your position (I looked into it -- I think a Google Books and Google Scholar search shows plenty of detailed coverage of this guy's decision to apologize, and while dependent on the original event, the decision to apologize was the focus of enough of that detailed coverage to move it out of WP:BLP1E status). Anyway, welcome back to the land of the unblocked. -- Noroton ( talk) 05:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• If Wikipedia had a decent system for protecting BLPs on barely famous people, it wouldn't bother me to have these articles. Cla68 ( talk) 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• @Noroton, you still can vote keep. I did. Why would you not be able to? ++ Lar: t/ c 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Waddle is now closed as Keep. Too late. -- Noroton ( talk) 05:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oh, my mistake. It's now a redirect. If enough information were added along the lines I mentioned just above, it would be too much for the larger article and would need to be recreated. -- Noroton ( talk) 05:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

United we stand [88].-- Scott Mac (Doc) 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

for the record, I disagree with Lar,and Yellow Monkey, and if you canvass again in this manner, I shall certainly block you. When you say that you did not object to the articles in particular, but canvass to delete it because you wanted to make a protest about the current BLP policy, I think that aggravates the situation considerably. WP:POINT.

To close as non-consensus and redirect is a very strange close. since it is not supported by policy, it amounts to nonconsnsus keep, and the person decision to redirect. anyone can of course revert it. DGG ( talk) 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, fortunately for me and you I've already nominated all of the minor BLPs that I created that I think should be deleted. I encourage you to do the same if you've created any. I also encourage you to use whatever policy-allowed means available to help get them deleted, such as posting announcements about it in whatever off-wiki forum you want to. Until Wikipedia gets some system installed to effectively protect these articles from abuse, they need to be deleted. Please be part of the solution, not the problem. Cla68 ( talk) 21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You've already had it explained to you in the Rancourt section above why you are utterly wrong about this matter. I'm going to repeat this one more time to see if you can understand it. Jewish is not the same thing as Israeli. The content I included was in regard to the well-sourced comments Rancourt made about the Israeli lobby, not claimed remarks about the Jewish lobby which were added by other users and was never in any draft of the article I ever touched. The sentence that I kept in was of course well-sourced and is still in the article. I understand that you'd like to see me as the evil incarnation of BLP violations but that's simply not the case. Continuing to conflate Jews with Israelis is offensive to a great many people and your continued remarks about the Rancourt matter border on personal attacks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, you're right that I went to far with that comment. I apologize and will line through it. Cla68 ( talk) 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Well I'm pleasantly surprised. I suppose the next obvious question is whether you are going to comment at all in the WR thread clarifying that the entire thread is based on basic factual errors? Or do incorrect statements about living people with zero truth only matter if they are article subjects and not if they are in googlable fora? JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok. I just read your attempt to "apologize" in the AfD and I have to ask, what about the statement do you not necessarily agree with? Do you think that Jew=Israeli or do you think that I somehow edited the article using time a machine? Maybe I did edit the article then and then the edits were oversighted? JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not disagreeing with you on the wording issue, what I'm saying is that you should have listened to Smash the State's argument that the information was dubious. As I'm sure you're aware, BLPs on marginally notable individuals are often abused in Wikipedia, which is why we shouldn't have any. When someone comes along and says that the information in one is wrong, we need to consider it carefully. I was apologizing for bringing that up without context in the AfD discussion. It wasn't necessary or helpful for me to do so. Cla68 ( talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

That I should have listened to him about what information? I never had a chance to look at the article after the questionable information about Rancourt using the phrase "Jewish lobby" was added. The information he removed when I was involved with the article was "Israel lobby" where it was well-sourced. There was never any strong argument against that phrase. I listened to him, decided he was wrong, as did most other editors. What should I have done differently? JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one, as it's a judgement call. I would not have reflexively reverted Smash's removal of the material, instead I would have talked to him about it and asked him in more detail how he happened to know that the information was untrue. I did that here. In this case, once I ascertained that the anonymous poster appeared to know what he/she was talking about, I removed the material even though I probably could have been obstinate and kept insisting that the material in question was supported by a reliable source. This kind of thing is even more important in BLPs, since they are, unfortunately, the target of so much abuse because of Wikipedia's lack of any kind of effective process to manage them. Cla68 ( talk) 04:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Um, you are aware that is argument against the phrase was due to claims of undue weight not a sourcing a problem? And that in the 3RR warning I asked him to discuss the matter? JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I, of course, looked at the edits in question, and his first objection was that the material, in his opinion, implicated the article's subject in a crime. Cla68 ( talk) 04:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I again have to wonder whether we are looking at the same article history [89]. Smashthestate brought up the issue of possible crimes related to the phrase "Jewish lobby" not the phrase "Israel lobby" (and again, Jewish lobby was added by another user and I never looked at or edited the article between when that phrase was added and when the sourcing was found to be bad). In multiple edit summaries he referred to undue weight. Incidentally, the editor who also reverted Smash was Scott [90]. I'd be curious if you think this is a sign that he's not paying enough attention to BLP issues... JoshuaZ ( talk) 05:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You were the one that warned Smash about 3RR on his talk page. Once a warning is given out, it raises the tension of the dispute considerably. I don't know if you're currently an admin or not, but if you are, that warning is more serious. Cla68 ( talk) 05:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

He had gone over 3RR. So the problem is now that I raised the temperature? What does that even mean? I asked him to talk about the issue on the talk page, something he was not doing. And if I were an admin(I'm not) that would be utterly irrelevant given that admins have no authority over disputes they are involved in. Also, given your lack of address of the issue, am I correct in presuming that you agree that Smash never made any claim that the content which Scott and I were keeping in the article was in any way an allegation of criminal activity? JoshuaZ ( talk) 05:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't think Smash ever accused you guys of defaming the article's subject, just getting in the way when he tried to remove it. If he thinks that 3RR doesn't apply to removing libelous information, how is he supposed to react when he gets such a warning? Cla68 ( talk) 05:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

So do we now need to pussy-foot around every single claim someone makes about libel regardless of its basic in fact? JoshuaZ ( talk) 05:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

When it comes to BLPs on marginally notable people? Yes! If an editor blanks the page, repeatedly reverts, or gets angry when we revert them, we need to calmly inquire, to ask why. Of course, it would be better if we just deleted all such articles. The Denis Rancourt episode is one example of why this is so. Cla68 ( talk) 05:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The term "marginally notable" seems to be getting broader and broader every day. I don't know under what definition Rancourt is marginally notable. He's a very well-known and controversial figure. Not known to Cla68 =/= marginally notable. Moreover, the vast majority of libel claims we get here are simply nonsense. Obviously we examine them but that doesn't mean we need to pretend they have merit when they don't. In this particular case, Scott had already looked at the material and decided there was no BLP problem. I don't always agree with Doc Glasglow but you can be pretty sure that if he thinks there's no BLP problem then there damn well isn't a BLP problem. Frankly, I have zero understanding of how you think this supports the notion that marginally notable BLPs should be deleted... JoshuaZ ( talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

(Outdent) Marginally notable does need a generally accepted definition. Obviously, "not known to me" is not correct since two of the BLPs I nominated under this description were created by me. The third came from the central figure in an FA I helped write. By the way, the other BLP I nominated for deletion recently is here. Cla68 ( talk) 20:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes I'm aware of that thank you. I haven't made up my mind about Gus Kohntopp and so have not yet commented on it. JoshuaZ ( talk) 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I wanted to say that while I disagree with you on this specific, I have enormous admiration for the work you've done to help the project. I'm aware that you have significant standing to nominate this page for deletion, and I respect what you're doing. I just can't agree with the arguments you've offered. Best of luck, and please feel free to call on me if I can ever be of assistance. BusterD ( talk) 05:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

No worries. I appreciate the kind words. Cla68 ( talk) 05:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

while reading the discussion on the Mount Hebron page, i noticed that one of the parties to arbcom has continued (this week) to try to have the article say it is in "judea, an area in israel," even going so far as leaving out west bank entirely in one edit. i'm not posting to the case or evidence page, but i think this is relevant and thought you might want to include it in your section on him in the workshop or evidence pages. untwirl( talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

If you don't want to present an evidence section, just note this on the talk page of the evidence page. Cla68 ( talk) 22:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

frankly, i'm a bit afraid to get involved there. having interacted briefly with some of the prime offenders, i have no naivete about the methods that are used to effectively neutralize editors when they dare to protest. sorry if its odd for me contact you like this, i've been watching the case since it started and was surprised to see those edits while the case is in progress. its probably moot at this point anyway; i read that the arbs are drafting their decision. once again, sorry to intrude. good luck. untwirl( talk) 02:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

In your comment on my talk page, you indicated that you are "afraid to get involved?" Do you find the editors in question intimidating? If so, I suspect (and hope) that after this arb case is over you won't have reason to feel threatened by them anymore. I'm going to note the edit you told me about somewhere in the case, perhaps on the Workshop page. Cla68 ( talk) 03:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It's not my style to revert something straight away, so I would appreciate your discussing your removal of a key issue from the lead. I know you say in your edit summary that it is a minor issue, but Luther's foremost biographer Martin Brecht says this: "his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the 'church fathers' of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer". That's not minor stuff. qp10qp ( talk) 00:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You can revert it back if you like. I don't edit war and I don't take it personally if my article edits are reverted, it's part of the wiki process. I would opine that if you want his anti-semitic views mentioned in the intro, that you omit the reference to the Nazis. Cla68 ( talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

OK. I should say that I didn't write this stuff myself, but I remember that that part was the result of an enormous amount of talk page discussion and quoting. The Nazis often used Luther as a justification for their policies against the Jews: this is not Luther's responsibility, but it is part of the story of his ideas. qp10qp ( talk) 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Were you following the events with ScienceApologist very closely? I am his mentor, and the Committee's intrusion into mentorship at that proposed decision brought me within a hair's breadth of resigning from all mentorships in protest. The attempt politicized mentorship to an intolerable level. By no means would I suggest imposition of supervised editing in this or any other remedy, unless it has full willing consent of all parties. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it wash behind the ears. Durova ^Charge! 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'll make a note of that in my statement. Cla68 ( talk) 00:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. Durova ^Charge! 01:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

As someone who has often talked about the difficulty of achieving neutrality, would you mind taking a look at this suggestion? SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 02:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I commented. Cla68 ( talk) 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comment. I've started a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. Please feel free to edit it. I'd appreciate your input. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs}

FYI. -- Noroton ( talk) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you still on line? If so, can I ask you to correct/rewrite my English? Oda Mari ( talk) 05:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I replied on my talk page. It's a new section in Cherry blossom, 'Culinary use'. Oda Mari ( talk) 05:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. I saw your copyedit and message. Try them. Sakuramochi is very tasty. It would be better to eat cake and the leaf at the same bite. But it might be difficult to find sakuramochi right now because it's a kind of a seasonal cake. ありがとう。Happy editing! Oda Mari ( talk) 05:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't actually know the answer, but I posted some information on Rootology's talk page. It does not appear there was an ArbCom vote on the matter. Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Many of those who discussed it no longer edit Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 14:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Roxana Saberi.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Óðinn ( talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

A free image has been uploaded to Commons. Óðinn ( talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I can't delete the image since I'm not an admin, someone else will do it - I just notified you in case you should wish to dispute the speedy deletion request. Cheers! Óðinn ( talk) 07:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano ( talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

A few points that I feel need to be said: (a) your posting of the 3RR item on my page, you were just as much a participant and I could have placed the same notice on your page...but didn't. Just saying. (b) you said that you were going to take the discussion to RFC, but didn't. It surprised me that I ended up doing it for you. A sidenote - I hope you feel that I presented the situation as neutrally and fairly as possible, just as you would have done I'm sure. If you do not feel that it was fair & balanced, believe me when I say that it was my intention to do so. (c) if you do feel that the consensus is leaning towards the exclusion of the names and are dropping your side of the discussion, if you could post an appropriate comment on the rfc section, that would be swell.

All that said, I will now assume any misunderstandings on that topic between you and I are now bygones/water under bridge and we can continue on our merry way. On the bright side, the good thing that is to come out of this is that a (hopefully, ultimately) definitive decision is to be made regarding similar situations that may arise in the future. For that, I thank you. I see that you spend much of your editing time in other content areas to much regard; if you have the time and an interest in assisting to improve any of the Disney-oriented articles along the way, you are more than welcome to join us. SpikeJones ( talk) 02:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I was going to post an RfC, but was going to do it later in the day, my (Japan) time, which probably meant that it would have been the next morning your time (I assume that you're in the US). I was pleasantly surprised when you beat me to it. I'll leave a comment in the RfC as suggested. I don't take personally most of the stuff that goes on in here, it's just a website. Keep up the good work. Cla68 ( talk) 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

"Just a website"?! My god, man. SpikeJones ( talk) 03:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the offer. We've tried to get some of the film articles to Featured (user Alientraveller is a phenom at film stuff), but they always seem to fall apart a little bit due to fanboyz ruining stuff. I believe The Lion King made it to featured once upon a time. We've tried to keep the Pixar films as high-quality as possible (Up, Ratatouille, Wall-e being the better examples), as there appear to be more readily-citable material for those. If we were to concentrate on any, UP would be the one to start with since it's the most current and high profile...especially come Oscar season when it's expected to be one of the 10 nominated best feature films. We're going to run into issues with the Fall release of Princess and the Frog due to perceived controversy and political correctness edits. That one is not going to be fun. SpikeJones ( talk) 12:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Want to be amused? Check out the lengthy and ongoing discussion taking place here: Talk:Andy_Murray#RFC:_How_should_Twitter_and_Fan_Sites_external_links_be_handled_for_Celebrity_Pages.3F and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Fansites_on_External_Links_in_Tennis_Articles.3F (both unlinked on purpose) SpikeJones ( talk) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:

• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development
• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum

Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.

Thanks! Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla - For info, I think we're also expecting a list and/or scope from Arbcom. [91] -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 00:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply

That meant to say "as well".....Nothing stopping us piping up, but my view is it's likely more fuel for the RfC. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't think there's any doubt that the movie goes against scientific consensus, which isn't the same thing as saying that it's wrong (although it probably is). As for my comments on the prevailing view (I avoided the word consensus) on the talk page, I was basing it largely on the discussion about Category:Denialism (in which even some of the editors opposed to inclusion of the category, including PolScribe and me, acknowledge that a scientific consensus exists. The subject is also discussed in several of the sections of Archive 5 (including the first two and the "Ofcom" section), and this section of the previous archive (in which User:Oren0, one of the more active and more reasonable anti-global warming editors, acknowledges that there's a scientific consensus on the question). I'm not saying it's a settled question, but I think that the statement is supported by reliable sources and by prevailing opinion on the talk page. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Per a request as part of the RfC you recently !voted in we have changed the style of !voting. Please review those updates and make any changes to your !vote, as appropriate/desired. Thanks for your participation. -- GoRight ( talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I see you've been cleaning up: are you going to narrow the policy so that it discourages alt accounts as much as possible? Tony (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like to, I just haven't figured out how to word it yet. Any ideas? Cla68 ( talk) 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Along with another editor, I have been preparing an RFC on Aitias, as it's clear his numerous inappropriate actions are exhausting community patience. He has clearly learnt little, if anything from either his first RFC or RFAR. I'll let you know when it's up. We were going to wait until the Eric Barbour thread closed before proceeding. Majorly talk 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, I'll cross out what I proposed and will participate in the RfC. Cla68 ( talk) 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Oops, too late. Cla68 ( talk) 01:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias 2. Majorly talk 16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for this. Acalamari 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thought you might be interested in this new wikipedia space page that FT2 just posted. Made me think of you. [92] Cool Hand Luke 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for remembering that incident :). Cla68 ( talk) 00:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I saw your comment on the meatpuppetry GoRight page. I unfortunately don't know enough to say anything useful there, but I noticed your concerns. Two things to consider:

1. Scibaby has hundreds of socks, and is a huge pain, so he is often reverted on sight. He also brings up the same old topics again and again. Ergo everyone is annoyed.
2. If you have something to include that you think is valid but are worried that it is too close to a scibaby comment, or are reverting to something that he/she did, just leave a note on talk as to why you independently think it is good. Others may disagree but that should cover you. (FYI though most scibaby edits have been argued against before.)
3. I don't think you have much to worry about as you appear to be a very good-faith editor; if anything comes up and your actions haven't significantly changed, I will happily defend you. But because of your good-faithed-ness, I doubt anything will come up.

Awickert ( talk) 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

GoRight has been around for awhile also. I think one of the problems is with the "meatpuppet" policy and probably should be changed or done away with. Cla68 ( talk) 00:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I have a feeling that our thoughts on global warming may diverge in some ways, but you can feel welcome to post here if you want my attention / opinion, and FYI I believe that the established editors on the GW articles are always amenable to improving the description of the science. Most of us are uninterested in the economics, so I bet that that area suffers somewhat. Awickert ( talk) 01:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Your suggestion at RS/N to contact the Chinese language bulliten boards was a good one. We located a Chinese speaker who has provided us with a wealth of useful info and translations. Now, for a request: do you know of similar bulliten boards for Russian speakers? -- Coleacanth ( talk) 22:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks like you already found the right place to ask. I would suggest looking into more Chinese and Russian sources, as it appears that they have a lot more information that would be useful in expanding and improving the LaRouche articles. Cla68 ( talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. -- Coleacanth ( talk) 21:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

[93]. -- GoRight ( talk) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, Thought you may have an interest in this one... Johnfos ( talk) 07:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. You are consistent. Though I wonder why you identify it as "PRC media" rather than by name. Why is that? Would that be an appropriate characterization of the source for other articles too? IIRC, HK's accounts were strongly opposed to linking the paper to the Communist Party because that would be "red baiting". Is he right - are you red baiting or are you giving a reasonable description of the source to inform readers?   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply

This makes it fairly clear that that source is a state-controlled media outlet. It's a reliable source, but it's also tied to the Communist government, exactly how much, however, is probably open to debate. Again, it's up to the reader to decide on their own how true the information is after seeing what the source is. Cla68 ( talk) 23:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply

— Ed  (Talk • Contribs) 04:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems you added your support !vote to my RfA rather than MBisanz' RfB. Regards. Fribbler ( talk) 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Not sure if you've seen this, but it's being removed from WP:AN. There is some discussion at User talk:Tony Sidaway#WP:AN revert. -- NE2 22:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Though I happen to agree with you on the RfC you posted, I'd like to make a note that RfC summaries should be short and impartial (though not everyone follows this). Just so you know in case you post another one, Awickert ( talk) 15:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Duly chastened. Cla68 ( talk) 23:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You're welcome : ) Awickert ( talk) 07:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You left a comment at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#RfC: Primary sources, however some of what you wrote is ambiguous. I've left three questions for you. I'd be interested in your answers if you have an opportunity to reply.   Will Beback  talk  08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 20:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Last fall you participated in a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#User:Dking/Dennis King and you proposed a topic ban for Dking editing LaRouche articles. I have now made the same proposal at WP:ANI, because Dking has reappeared and made some very disruptive edits. Perhaps you would care to comment. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC) reply

There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development#Still viable?. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Whoopsies. You've already been engaged in the conversation there. Sorry. I screwed up. John Carter ( talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Where have I ever threatened to block Dinkeytown? How can you possibly accuse of this, with no evidence? This is unfair and wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

My 2 cents: slander is for spoken words. Libel is for written words. I believe you meant the latter. HTH. SpikeJones ( talk) 12:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You are correct, but I'd rather not worry about the precise meaning of either word. In law there are important differences with important consequences. I just want Cla68 to apologize for what I hope was a good faith mistake, and strike out his mistake, whether you call it slander or libel. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I interpreted this remark to be agreeing with Mathsci's previous remark. If you say that you only meant to agree with Mathsci's subsequent comment, I believe you and retract my allegation. Mathsci's behavior in this episode was much worse than Dinkytown's and, as an administrator, you shouldn't have given it a pass. Cla68 ( talk) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Cla68, it is true that MathSci left a message for me about blocking on 23:30, 28 August 2009. I did not respond.

Then on 09:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) MathSci left another message calling for patience. I responded almost immediately at 09:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC). I honestly am surprised that anyone would think I was responding to the comment I did not respond to, and not the comment that my response immediately followed. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

i appreciate your formal retraction. Is there a way for you to strikeout what you wrote about me without damaging anything you wrote and still stand by? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

What was this about? [94] The Onion is a well known satirical site. Seems an odd action for someone as clued up as your good self? Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The Onion is a popular satirical observer of American culture, including the moon landing hoax. I should have provided an explanation of that with the link, but I thought it would be self-evident. By the way, a newspaper in Bangladesh accidentally reprinted the story as credible news [95]. Cla68 ( talk) 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

When you put a spoof story into an encyclopedia you're playing with fire. The Decan Chronicle incident only emphasizes how important it is that we avoid sabotaging, or even appearing to sabotage, this encyclopedia. In short: if you want to play silly buggers do so on an external website. -- TS 23:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

There you go, Tony. I appreciate your concern. Cla68 ( talk) 23:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

See Apollo hoax in popular culture‎ and please don't encourage the addition of tripe to the article on the conspiracy theory. It's batshit enough as it is. -- TS 00:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for putting the info in the correct place. Remember though, we (Wikipedia editors) don't care if the theory is true or not, we just report what people, like The Onion, say about it. Cla68 ( talk) 02:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This topic has been raised to us before. I think I'll try to move it back to the front-burner. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

See User talk:Lar#Your post. Cool Hand Luke 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Woonpton blanked the discussion as OT for her talk page (which I agree that it was). Anyway I just want to say that I agree with your last comment. There are the alarmists on one side, the deniers on the other, and those of us in the middle trying to keep things in reasonable accordance with the scientific literature and other appropriate sources sometimes lose our temper dealing with it all. It's a bad neighborhood. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You say, "Tony, why didn't you replace it with the appropriate category instead of just removing it?"

This seems to imply that you thought that I believed that such a category existed, and that I thought it appropriate to the article but failed to act on my belief. I didn't.

Moreover you added category:climatology to an article that was already a member of category:global warming, which is of course a subcategory, via category:climate change, of that category. -- TS 04:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I stand corrected. Cla68 ( talk) 04:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Word for the week of 1 Nov 09: acnestis Points: Use the word in an article- 5 points, in an article talk page- 2 points, in a discussion in admin space like ANI or a user talk page- 1 point.

Tally: Cla68- 5 [96] [97] [98] [99]

I recently stumbled upon your guide to writing history articles and found it helpful, so kudos there. But one thing stuck out - choosing a non-controversial subject, where you say if you can find an article that has been left alone for some time. I would argue that it benefits the project more if users do take on highly visible topics and thoroughly research them to find the "truth" (quotes because it's a relative term on Wikipedia as we all know). Not in the bang-your-head-against-the-wall Israeli-Palestinian sense maybe, but if there's going to be a debate, I'd much rather have someone citing five different book sources than relying on "I've always heard..." and similar arguments. You're tagged as willing and able to make difficult edits, so I figured it was food for thought. Again, very informative guide. :) Recognizance ( talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The reason I say that is if you want to take the article to FA. You're right that if we're serious about building Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, that we should tackle important, controversial subjects and fix them. If you want to, however, take an article to FA within a reasonable amount of time, it's easier, in my opinion, to avoid articles that are under the protection of POV-pushing editors with an agenda. I guess you could call it the "low-hanging fruit" analogy. Sure, a controversial article might require better sourcing to resolve the associated editing controversies, but the fairly rigorous FA review process should ensure that most, if not all, of FA articles are adequately sourced. Thank you for the kind words on the guide. Cla68 ( talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Very good point about time. And on second thought, it probably is better to steer new users away from wiki drama that could scare them off. By the way, you might mention library exchanges and similar programs in addition to overseas booksellers. That's how I plan to get ahold of this book, which I have no intention of paying for. Recognizance ( talk) 17:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Leave my pages alone [100]. You are not welcome William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Newspapers are notoriously unreliable when they report on science. Even the best quality newspapers make big errors regularly. Then, if we have a wiki article that focusses on some scientific topic, it would be difficult to use a newspaper story as a source, even if for that particular case the story seems to be ok. Because you could not do that as a rule. Rather, you would have to make a judgement on a case by case basis. But then that judgement would be Original Research.

At the discussion on the RS board, I linked to an old discusssion on the Special Relativity talk page where I also noted the tension between letting not so reliable sources in and the policy against OR. Therefore it is better to only allow high quality peer reviewed journals to be used as sources. Now, if a statement can be sourced from a peer reviewed source and there also exists a well written newspaper article that makes the same statement, you could decide to also give a citation to the newspaper article. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

That might actually be true about newspapers. The fact is, however, that WP's current RS policy is very clear, even mentioning the NYTimes by name, that major newspapers are reliable sources and are allowed, even encouraged. The policy does not prohibit the use of newspapers in science or any other article, except maybe BLPs. Cla68 ( talk) 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Wiki policy making is driven mainly by what goes on in the politics pages. Editors on science pages have to use slightly different rules, otherwise they could find themselves in deep trouble. This is another dispute I was involved in. Clearly, simply sticking to the existing wiki rules would not always work for certain science articles (although most of the time there would be no problems). So, in the cases where there would be problems one would be justified to invoke WP:IAR. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Scientific standards is generally what we follow on scientific articles. Even major newspapers often make mistakes about science. I see no problem with this NYT article, but it's a slippery slope to the less accurate and/or more POV-ey articles. If you Google Scholar around for a paper written by the people that they mention about the temperature plateau, I'd happily send it to you and reinsert the same material with that as a RS. This current discussion has actually motivated me to try to make more formal standards for scientific articles, so I might be following up on that in ... oh, a month, after things cool down at work ;). Awickert ( talk) 04:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a note to say I appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination)‎. The irony is that I am quite ambivalent about LaRouche, but I strongly oppose what I see as the abuse of process that has frequently been employed as a tactic by the team that controls the LaRouche articles. So, I open my mouth (figuratively speaking) and for my troubles I get branded a LaRouchie. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

LaRouche isn't, unfortunately, the only topic in that situation. Cla68 ( talk) 06:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Re Isn't the BBC considered reliable? Quarstion (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I would think it would be, but you might be surprised with the "regulars" with this article. Cla68 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC) - no, the Beeb isn't a WP:RS for science. [101] is an obvious counter-example William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

No, it isn't. The BBC, NYTimes, and any other major media outlets reporting that climate change is not following the IPCC's predictions is significant. Those outlets synthesize the various reports from "scientific" organizations. Cla68 ( talk) 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Sometimes they do but in general they don't: they do whatever they think their readers will want to hear, which results in the sensationalization of everything. For controversial articles scientific papers must be the standard. Otherwise, I predict that the GW article will become a feces-flinging-fiasco between Greenpeace and Rush Limbaugh (as pretty much any public discussion on the topic is). I imagine that with your POV, you wouldn't want a million greenies shoving the "global warming = end of the world" newspaper articles down your throat (and neither do William or I or most of the other regulars). With the scientific paper restriction, we can make the article much more accurate and avoid such issues. As I mentioned above, I will gladly send you scientific articles that you find if you want to look them over. Oftentimes, newspapers will reference press releases, which will in turn will reference the actual articles (and there is often quite a bit of change in the translation), so this could be a way to track down the original science of what you're looking for. Though not a climate scientist myself, I'm willing to lend a hand in the deciphering of said articles. Awickert ( talk) 18:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

[copied/pasted from Awickert's talk by Awickert] I appreciate your offer to help. It's just that a blanket ban on newspapers is not only against Wikipedia policy, but also counerproductive. Mass media often sythesizes scientific opinion. This is important for us becuase we're, supposedly, not allowed to to synthesize sources ourselves. Cla68 ( talk) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I would argue that it is not against Wikipedia policy, especially when there are better sources available and newspapers actually do a poor job on GW IMO (anything that says "warming" tends to mean distaster; anything that says "global warming is complicated" tends to mean that it's a lie). I don't know if there is official policy or has been an RfC on this, but this is standard practice in scientific articles and written down in not-quite-official policy in a few places. If there isn't anything, I would welcome your opening of an RfC to create some policy. In any case, what the scientific article limitation does is hold the GW article to the standard that scientific papers are held to. There are indeed good and bad newspaper articles, but selectively choosing them is difficult and may be WP:SYN in itself! There are things called "review papers" which are syntheses of the scientific literature and may be helpful. Also, scientific sources can be used in tandem (e.g., "A et al. say Y but B and C say X and Z") without being WP:SYN. I will see what I can find about warming in the 2000's. Awickert ( talk) 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hm, I've given it a good look and can't find much of anything. Maybe you have another talk page stalker who can explain why this is the case. At the very least, newspaper articles would be appropriate for the global warming controversy page (indicating that public opinion is swaying due to recent temperature variability). Awickert ( talk) 19:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

You notified the Signpost tiproom of Fg2's death. Several editors have decided to collaborate to get one of his favorite articles to FA status. Would you care to opine on which article we should select here? Thanks. - Draeco ( talk) 04:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

I'm not sure when I'll be back. If you need any information on something, please email me. Cla68 ( talk) 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Good luck until whenever you get back! I'm sure I'll be emailing you soon. ;-) — Ed  (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, I think I'm more or less back now, although my participation may be more limited than before. Cla68 ( talk) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

[102] :-) — Ed  (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh my, same here! KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• ...parties are admonished and instructed to avoid ... Unnecessary interaction between Cla68 and SlimVirgin....

Cla68, I've notice that you've been appearing on pages related to topics in which Slimvirgin is known to have longstanding interests, and where she has already posted. It appears that these are unnecessary interactions. I suggest that you avoid doing so in the future in order to comply with the ArbCom remedy.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your concern Will. SV has helped me out with an article I'm working on which is on my "to do" list on my userpage, which I thanked her for and she responded graciously. If you feel that me and her aren't getting along, please take it up with ArbCom. In the meantime, DKing has admitted that he is not neutral about LaRouche. You say that he hasn't violated NPOV with article edits, which I'm sure is debatable. Anyway, I believe NPOV also applies to talk page comments. Although we traditionally give a little more leeway on article talk pages, if you read Mr. King's comments on the LaRouche talk pages, I believe that it is clear that Mr. King is following an anti-LaRouche agenda. Therefore, if Mr. King continues the same behavior, I'm going to ask for a formal topic ban at ArbCom enforcement. As an admin, I assume you're concerned about violations of our core policies and will help out with the request? Cla68 ( talk) 06:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you see anything wrong with the changes that Dking has made to the article in the past year? You haven't said so. As for the ArbCom remedy, you can ask for it to be repealed if you think it's no longer necessary. While it's active it'd be best if you followed it.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Like I said, it, and BLP applies to talk page discussion also. Remember, Chip Berlet was blocked for anti-LaRouche talk page comments. Cla68 ( talk) 06:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

And you're interested in this topic because?   Will Beback  talk  07:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Didn't I tell you by email just a few months ago? Well, if you want to pretend like that conversation didn't happen, I'm involved for the same reason I become interested in Global warming, Intelligent design, Gary Weiss, and Prem Rawat, because Wikipedia policies are or were being violated, in this case by DKing. Please assist SV in resolving the problem. Cla68 ( talk) 08:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Regarding your first point - there are so many topics where policies are being violated that picking one or another usually involves more than just the presence of a dispute. If you're looking for problems to fix I can make some suggestions. Regarding your second point - believe me, I'm working on it!   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Are there really any topics in which one editor's involvement is so obviously a problem? I mean, DKing actually links to his anti-LaRouche website right at the top of his userpage! Frankly, I'm surprised that he hasn't been told like, three years ago, to step off of the LaRouche articles. If you're working on it, then I hope that means that this particular problem is coming to an end. Cla68 ( talk) 12:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

There have even been members of the movement who've been editing the topic, believe it or not. It's amazing who they let in here. The great Yogi Berra once said of a restaurant - "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."   Will Beback  talk  18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I know it no longer matters and that it has been such a "long" time since this happened. But I just wanted to add that I agree to an extent. I do believe that some admins don't care about the words that they use, but the fact is that a lot of editors "look up" to them as people who should know what to do on this project. Using the wrong words may discourage editors from editing. And last time I checked this was a project where ANYONE can come and gather with other editors to build this project. But I think that desysoping would only depend on the case. I know that is why you say "may" be desysoped, but in most cases it wouldn't be fit. Cases where it would be fit would be situations/cases where admin x has repeatedly done this and doesn't intend to change their ways or even be careful about how they approach things. But anyways, I'm positive this doesn't matter a whole lot; just wanted to say that I agree. ⊥m93 ^talk. 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I think that sometimes there are cases of admin edit summaries or other commments that are so completely uncalled for that immediate suspension of admin privileges may be appropriate. We need to make sure that our admins understand that they are, as you say, examples for the rest of us. Cla68 ( talk) 06:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have a quick question for you. How did you happen to find Kintetsubuffalo's talk page and have your attention drawn towards my edits? I was a little confused seeing that he is in Japan, and I have had two other editors who are located in Japan revert me. From checking the edit history, it seems as if that is the only time you have edited that talk page. Is there some messaging system that Japanese editors are using to contact eachother? I know that one of the editors involved (who I will not mention) is quite keen on contacting other editors in Japan in order to gain support for certain edits - is that the case with my edits? 119.173.81.176 ( talk) 04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I looked at recent postings on Wikipedia Review made by you and HK. I categorically deny that I am using any sock puppet on Wikipedia; I post under my own name. "LaRouche planet" is almost certainly just that--a person from the LaRouche Planet website. I am not one of the people responsible for that site and would not presume to use its name, although I certainly support their efforts to expose LaRouche's anti-Semitism and cultism.-- Dking ( talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I believe you. Cla68 ( talk) 05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking this on. I don't have any sources for this, but I think the term "land bridge" referring to intermodal transport originates from the use of North American railroads as an alternate to the Panama Canal for Asia-Europe freight. Essentially it was a "bridge" between the oceans over land. The Eurasian Land Bridge appears to be a corruption of the term; it would more properly be called a Eurasian transcontinental railway. -- NE2 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

That makes sense. I'll try to get the article started this week sometime. Cla68 ( talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I've started working on the article here in userspace. Cla68 ( talk) 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The article is done and posted. Please see here for a list of items the article is lacking. Cla68 ( talk) 13:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker ( talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla

I was disappointed at the ... non-response, as it were, to the question:

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)

   A: I hope that my answers to the questions on this page will provide sufficient evidence of this ability. 

With your track-record in FAs and MilHist, not to mention other forums, you are ideally placed to link or diff to a few examples of what you consider your best writing and/or editing of pre-existing prose. An additional advantage (over some of the other candidates) would be diffs of posts that show you to write well in heated exchages, trouble-shoot on talk pages, playing a cooling-down/mediating role with the appropriate use of language; or of editing policy text and/or proposal text. Tony (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Will do. Cla68 ( talk) 08:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla, I'm running my uContribs program for all ACE candidates, you're first in alpha order so I thought I'd invite your scrutiny of User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Cla68 to see if I'm getting anything wrong. When I checked the output, my first thought was that if Battle of the Coral Sea order of battle can have 119 references and 23 sources and still be rated Stub-class, you must have pretty rigorous standards for article quality. :) If you re-rate anything, feel free to update my page too. Regards! Franamax ( talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I upgraded a few of the stubs to start, including Battle of the Coral Sea order of battle, Maccabiah bridge collapse, Operation RY, Invasion of Lae-Salamaua, and Air Raid on Bari. Cla68 ( talk) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have been reviewing various editors ACE2009 opinion pages and have been rather indelicate in my commentary regarding a couple of people's criteria of not supporting anyone who is not an admin. I specifically noted your unfortunate experience in RfA, and was unequivocal in stating my opinion why you might be an exception to the rule/rationale provided in those opinions. This was done entirely on my own initiative, and I am writing here to in an effort to recognise that only I should bear any untoward consequences for these actions and have this on record so that you or any reader should be aware that you are an innocent party to my partisan editing.
Sorry for any potential difficulty I may have caused, and I hope you have some better endorsements of your candidacy than that which I have provided. Mark. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I can't read what you said to Z-Man because he admin deleted it, and as has been pointed out, I'm not an admin. I don't have any problem with what you said to the other editor. I appreciate the support. Cla68 ( talk) 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You may wish to note the following comment: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/Cla68#False statements by candidate. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I've commented there. I really think that you could have brought your grievances here prior to going site-wide... it looks to me like Cla just made a mistake with his facts... — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 01:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Sam took it up with me by email first, so he didn't do anything wrong, at least as far as trying to clear it up privately first. Cla68 ( talk) 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, gotcha. — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I've responded. Cla68 ( talk) 05:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Eurasian Land Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nick Ottery ( talk) 10:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

All cleared up now - see your nomination's entry on the DYK page. I was, it turns out, looking at completely the wrong section for the hook! Your reply though cleared up the matter and I've approved it for DYK. Thanks! Nick Ottery ( talk) 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I was looking at the red link in the Eurasian Land Bridge article for the Beijiang Railway. Google wasn't being very helpful so I went to some of the article sources. In particular figure 1 on page 47 of this indicates that the Beijiang Line is simply the northern branch of the Lanxin railway. That article contains a section on the northern branch so I've piped the link to Lanxin railway#The northern branch in the Eurasian LB article. Could you give this a quick sense check please? Nick Ottery ( talk) 12:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi... since you're running for the ArbCom, I'd like to interview you for the Wikivoices podcast series. If you have Skype, it will be easy to do; otherwise, something might be arranged (like my actually paying to connect Skype to non-Internet phones). Let me know if you're interested. *Dan T.* ( talk) 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I know the time difference can be a problem, but if you e-mail me a phone number and what times are good to call, I might manage to do an interview anyway. *Dan T.* ( talk) 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Voting has started... are you going to be able to do the interview? *Dan T.* ( talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I replied to your latest message on my talk page... I hate conversations split between two pages because everybody replies to the other's page... almost as silly as top-posted e-mail. *Dan T.* ( talk) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I can try the interview now if you're up to it... I'm just barely waking up and it's late at night for you, but maybe it can manage to work out if I grab a cup of coffee first... *Dan T.* ( talk) 12:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the interview... it's up now. *Dan T.* ( talk) 19:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 07:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Great idea! I'm a WWII buff. How did you know I have several shelves of WWII books? Thanks very much. MajorStovall ( talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll start digging into my pile of books. Thanks. MajorStovall ( talk) 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Still remains - my #5. No hurry, though. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I didn't notice that you had added another question. I've responded. Cla68 ( talk) 04:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Still think you did the right thing? Cla68 ( talk) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

"Please communicate to all involved my strong personal and professional preference that they reconsider this decision." Sounds to me like you were implying that you were acting in your formal capacity as the Foundation's attorney. Cla68 ( talk) 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I absolutely think I did the right thing. What makes you think I should believe otherwise? Cade deliberately omits the messages in which I said later that I was expressly speaking for myself rather than as a function of my position. The reason he does this is that he is inherently dishonest. MikeGodwin ( talk) 04:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You know how important appearances are. Why didn't David Gerard simply communicate his opinion and demand directly to the ArbCom? Why did he get a lawyer to do it for him? You don't think that choosing you over anyone else sends some kind of message? Imagine how it feels to be ArbCom and to get an email from the Foundation's attorney telling them, using legal terminology, that they screwed-up, in spite of the fact that you tried to make it look like it was just a personal request? Furthermore, if you weren't willing to be involved in your official capacity, then if it comes out in public about what was going on, as happened here, it looks like back-room dealing using an unofficial "heavy", videlicet, you, doesn't it? Cla68 ( talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

David Gerard did not get a lawyer to do anything for him. You need to get your facts straight. I spoke out about the issue on my own behalf, based on my own perceptions. The very fact that you think David got me to represent him shows you don't know what you're talking about. MikeGodwin ( talk) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Here's a quote from the ArbCom Noticeboard: " The Arbitration Committee has...suppressed the motion in an accord between the subject and the Arbitration Committee (brokered by Mike Godwin)." On your own, you contacted both David Gerard and the ArbCom and offered to broker an accord? Cla68 ( talk) 05:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

That is in fact what happened. I raised my concerns on the Functionaries list, and after I voiced them, it was suggested that I mediate the dispute and try to come up with a resolution of it. MikeGodwin ( talk) 05:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Which, based upon your leaked comments in regard to DG hardly make you the best choice as an honest and independent broker. Minkythecat ( talk) 08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Does he really?

On the private mailing list, Godwin repeatedly says that the views he expressed about the Gerard situation are personal - that they are not delivered in his capacity as Wikimedia general counsel:

WMF isn't talking to you here...For future reference, when I speak as an official of the Foundation to represent Foundation policy, I sign my full name and include my position on Foundation staff. When I speak as my own self - as a lawyer with a couple of decades of experience at free-speech law and the law of online communities, I sign as

--Mike

Minkythecat ( talk) 08:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

And indeed, isn't there a delicious irony that a WMF lawyer, posting here, having given his view on the nature of the comments Arbcom made re: the DG case, then makes this bold claim against Cade Metz. Physician, heal thyself? I mean, given the nature of your advice to Arbcom re: being able to defend comments in court, just seems a bit odd you'd make such a bold statemnet on this user talk page. Minkythecat ( talk) 08:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, he may have been right to let the ArbCom know that they had not used proper wording for the announcement. The problem is, that based on past experience, any involvement by WMF staff in En.Wikipedia affairs looks like back-room meddling. But, he did come across as acting in a semi-official capacity. I agree that it would have been better for him to have acted either in a completely official role, or else made more effort to show that he was giving advice as just another interested party. Cla68 ( talk) 10:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

If it's a wording issue, change the wording, oversight the offending version. Fine. Is that what really happened? Minkythecat ( talk) 10:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Per your WR post, do you want me to nom you for adminship? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure. Thank you for offering. I'm not sure if it should be done this month, however. Perhaps after the elections are over? Cla68 ( talk) 00:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I do think after the elections would be better, but I'm happy to nom. If I forget in the holiday rush, would you please ping me? Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68, I hope you are doing well. I acknowledge that you are indeed making some very good points at the RFC for Eurasian Land Bridge. But can you please keep this formatting during the RFC? I think it will really help to segment out the various comments. I think if we can keep discussion based on a dialogue of determining "what the sources say", we can all work to make sure the RFC does not degenerate. Thus the reasoning for avoiding threaded discussions (except for that bottom section). Sound good? :) Cirt ( talk) 07:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I've never seen a content RfC done this way but so far it seems ok. Cla68 ( talk) 07:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay great! I started a new section at the bottom of the talk page to analyze the sources. I personally have not researched the topic (yet) which is why my RFC comment asked that question. Could you perhaps help by posting a source analysis with relevant quoted text in that subsection? That way, we can try to discuss and determine proportional weighting. Cirt ( talk) 07:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

How did you know about this RfC, by the way? Cla68 ( talk) 07:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Responded at my talk page. Btw, I happen to highly respect both you and SlimVirgin ( talk · contribs). And I especially appreciate your WP:FA contributions to the project. That's why I hope the RFC can stay amicable. :) Cirt ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Yea I will try to do my best to keep things congenial, if possible. :( Cirt ( talk) 09:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Notifying you of this request. SlimVirgin 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I was rather tempted to just add a reference to some world atlas, but I know full well that that would be too flippant: there are plenty of railways that every atlas shows, but which have in reality been torn down decades ago. (E.g., Newfoundland Railway). So I actually looked up sources for each link that affirm its existence and say something positive about it. Which, of course, made the text rather longer...

Also, Tsuji's paper I have added as a reference has a fair amount of statistics (e.g., on the historical use of the Trans-Siberian for the shipment of containers from Japan to Europe). Feel free to mine that!

I wish I had time to draw a decent SVG map.... Vmenkov ( talk) 09:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Xiangtan vs. LaRouche: I think that's exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia: a dozen people spent hours discussing whether a particular pundit/celebrity's opinion should be mentioned in the article. No one apparently took the trouble to read the PDF report at the http://www.transeurasialogistics.de/ - the site of the company that actually has run China-to-Germany services lately that would answer quite a few questions, viz:

• how much service is run (apparently, not too much: they mention "company trains", but only mentioned one customer, Fujitsu/Siemens, who shipped something in Sep 2008 from Xiangtan, Hunan, to Hamburg; "public trains" introduction has been delayed)
• cost/timing issues (5 times as expensive as sea freight, but twice as fast, on their route)
• maps
• gauge breaks (pictures show that they move containers from Chinese trains to Russian ones with cranes)
• and a few other tidbits

Similarly, Helseth's thesis in its "Literature" section has a link to Hisako Tsuji's paper with a wealth of data about container shipping from Russia's Pacific ports to Western Europe; and another Tsuji's paper with more data is now linked into our article directly.

Thinking more about the history of "land-bridge-ish" services, I seem to recall reading that Soviets sent shipments to North Vietnam by train via China, during the Civil War in that country in the 1960s, and I remember reading them complaining about the Chinese side - busy with their Cultural Revolution at the time, and being not too friendly to the Soviet Revisionists - being not too efficient with handling this kind of transit freight. The Vietnamese supposedly even make a line from Hanoi to Chinese border dual-gauge, to receive supplies from (and via) China easier. It would be interesting to look that stuff up, but it's not really all that germane to the current article; would be more suitable for the "logistic" section in the Vietnamese Civil War article, or for Transport in Vietnam, I reckon. Vmenkov ( talk) 12:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Please paste the list of all 60 reliable sources here. I will do the rest.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Please see this discussion. I've recommended you as a mentor. Viriditas ( talk) 05:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but you are too kind. I would like to see you more involved in the discussion. Our views on the subject may differ greatly, but I think you understand how this place works, and it would be good to see you on the talk page, either playing devil's advocate or helping both sides reach an agreement. Viriditas ( talk) 07:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The suggested outline looks fantastic, but I think we need help with the evidence and rebuttal section. That's going to be difficult to do. The way I would do it is to use prose paragraphs as much as possible (without headings or indications of "evidence" and "rebuttal") as this would prohibit editors from attempting to argue one position against the other and force them to write a more objective, integrated description of the evidence. It's going to be tough for some editors to grasp this, but I see what you are trying to do and I support it. We really need guidance with writing this section, so if you could point us to any good FA examples or any other sources in addition to AP, that would be most helpful. Viriditas ( talk) 03:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

At this talk page, you have indented your reply to address my input re: the image, when it doesn't actually appear to address (directly or tangentially) my point at all. Since you have made it clear you're replying to me, I wanted to ask for clarification here instead of cluttering that discussion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

My fault. I added a clearer comment. Cla68 ( talk) 04:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68, I noted you supported, in a constructive manner, my proposal to remove the bogus categorisation at the list of scientists opposing consensus article. Please see [103]. It will doubtlessly be reverted by Connolley, Petersen et al. and if you still support the proposal I'd appreciate your support in pushing this through. That conversation in the talk is a massive waste of WP bandwidth, and my change is, surely, the next best thing to getting the article deleted (which I supported). I believe, this removal of categorisation removes the illusion that these scientists are all divided and squabbling amongst themselves, as the POV pushers want, and I think, after that's gone, there'll be support to actually remove the article. If the article stays, at least the massive BLP & POV problems will be resolved, and we'll have a far more credible list. Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I've occasionally attempted to think though an outline for an article. A fair amount of work to do a decent job, and it would be disappointing to me if the effort were discarded. You obviously went through some effort to come up with an outline, but as noted, so had Guettarda, and it got lost in the jumble. I'm happy you aren't too wedded to your effort. I am trying to pick up on what you described as one of the positives of your effort - we shall soon see how it goes.-- SPhilbrick T 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I left this user a message alerting him to the special probation on these articles. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! KnightLago ( talk) 02:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Due to the holiday season plus Internet connection problems, I may not be very active over the next two to three weeks or so. Cla68 ( talk) 23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Just as well you didn't mention this during your candidacy; you may not have polled as well as you did... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 00:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm back from wikibreak and leaving a note to self as a reminder of an AfD discussion about an Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. article I just started. Cla68 ( talk) 23:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Just noticed this. Sorry, I should have notified you about the AfD. I assumed you'd be watching the article, but I should have left you a courtesy note just the same. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 16:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you find a single other date which which includes a settlement date, much less an "intent to sue" date? While it may not be written, there is a policy of including only events that are of above-average significance. There aren't even many Supreme Court cases listed in the events. You don't see minor battles, celebrity weddings, Stanley Cup playoffs, or Brittney Spears' haircut either. For any given date the number of events listed is relatively small. For example, there are only 54 events listed for December 17. Even a key date of a lawsuit is not the 55th most important event on that date, nor the 550th, and I doubt it's even the 5,500th. If every date in every article were included then the lists would be dramatically longer, perhaps too long to use or maintain.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

No, the dates of the events are not notable. Nobody is including them in the "memorable events of the 1990s".

I have been maintaining date and year articles for at least three years now, [104] so I'm familiar with the common practices. Minor items are deleted routinely. Don't take this personally- I've deleted scores of entries from date and year articles.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

In addition to the points made above, you should not be scattering wikilinks to the article on this lawsuit until its notability has been determined. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I would also caution Cla68 not to throw around terms like "vandalism," as he did on my talk page. When text is removed in good faith, it is not vandalism, and in this case it appears that two other editors have reached the same conclusion. If every event in every article warranted a date link, we would have a list of maybe 50,000 items for every date on the calendar. That goes back to the point I raised elsewhere about how we have to use our common sense in making judgments of these kinds. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 14:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Cla, I usually delete comments/sections on my talk page, with a kind "thank you". In an attempt to keep the conversation on the page in discussion. This avoids the conversation getting more contentious. Ikip 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Let me know how I can help (finding sources etc.) I have worked with you before, and seen you around, although we have little in common, it is nice to be able to help you rescue this article now. Ikip 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I know you're enthusiastic, and there's a history that I truly do not want to know about, but please don't pretend that this is case law. andy ( talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

FYI: User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Robertson_v._McGraw-Hill_Co..2C_Weiss.2C_and_Shepard, User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#McGraw-Hill_AfD I always like to know when editors are discussing me too :) Ikip 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for letting me know. It's not necessary to respond to that. If I had broken any rules, someone would have already done something about it. I hope GWH chooses to focus his efforts on the other possible Mantanmoreland socks who are hovering around the article. Cla68 ( talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• IMHO if you're accused in effect of bringing WP into disrepute it's very odd that you don't feel a need to respond. I would - why don't you? andy ( talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Andy, you sure seem to have strong personal feelings about this. Why? Did you notice that the nominator of that AfD was indef blocked? Again, like GWH, I think you're missing the big picture here. Cla68 ( talk) 02:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

There are two big pictures.

One, in which Gary Weiss appears to not be abiding with his ban, and which others have noticed and acted upon. I have no dispute with the underlying fact(s) or response there - he's banned, he was banned for a very good reason, and if that's not a sock of his I'll be very surprised. If I had noticed that it was an apparent sock earlier I would have done something about it, but I was not paying close attention to those articles these days.

Two, in which you are editing to some degree provocatively on a subject on which you have a conflict of interest, and by a less than entirely AGF interpretation could be seen to have created an attack article and violated WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, ...

In the worst possible interpretation this all would be immediately actionable. I think Weiss is edging towards that interpretation but not clearly there. Several people contacted me out of band about this and are in more moderate, but still concerned stances.

I am not inclined to assume the worst. But there is a problematic aspect. You are not unbiased on threads related to Weiss, and this was at least a problematic article in a bunch of ways, whether you crossed any clear policy lines or not.

Here's what I am leaning towards... I think that it would be best for all concerned if you agreed to stay away from editing Weiss topics. You know you aren't unbiased regarding him, and even if you disclose the COI it still opens up obvious concerns to have you involved in the topic.

I don't see any reason to take it to the extent of talk or wiki space topic bans, but I think that there is too much latent COI, residual bad feeling from the Mantanmoreland case, and risk of BLP problems for article space edits to be a good idea.

The issues concern me enough to talk to people about it and talk to you about it. I am initially concerned enough that taking it to ANI for a community consensus discussion would be on the set of things I would consider, but I think it would be rude to jump straight to that and not bring my concerns here and assume a little good faith. The context and some of the details are disturbing to me, but I think that on review and reflection I just see enough evidence to indicate to me that there's a topic problem, not indications of bad faith.

I hope that the underlying issue - that you and Weiss have a problem with each other - should be evident enough to you that you're willing to admit that and admit that it's a factor in your participation here.

That does not mean that you have necessarily actually violated policy. But the underlying issue is fairly evident.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a little odd, isn't it? It seems to me that, ideally, the people contacting you would instead be commenting on the AfD, or improving the article. They seem to prefer their chances trying to get you to act against Cla68. Still, I'm not sure what the answer is. Part of me thinks that if the lawsuit justifies an article, a random person will start it; it isn't like this article had previously been thwarted via sockpuppetry or other inappropriate means. I also don't think we should be so "creative" in finding ways to prevent someone from manipulating Wikipedia. Yet, the article is now here, at least unless it's deleted in AfD. I would tentatively agree with the suggestion that Cla68 shouldn't create more articles relating to Weiss, since there is a BLP issue with the effect of such articles. I'm less convinced he shouldn't be involved in these articles in any respect. Is this a possibility? For the record I haven't spoken with Cla68 or anyone else about this. Mackan79 ( talk) 05:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I am fairly certain that all edits I've ever done to any of the NSS-related articles, including the article currently under AfD, were in conformance to the rules. I believe strongly that the article I created recently is an NPOV article, giving both sides of the issue. So is there some contention occurring? Definitely. Do I carry the most blame? I don't think so.

GWH, we could avoid having any battles over NSS by simply not fighting them. As a result, the NSS article would be badly biased, Weiss' bio would read like a promotional press-release, and Patrick Byrne's article would make him look like the epitome of banality and evil. Actually, those articles did used to look like that before some editors jumped in and tried to fix them. Unfortunately, their efforts were often impeded by, in addition to Mantanmoreland's many accounts, misguided admins, who have since, apparently for the most part, realized they were being had and quietly stepped away.

As far as your inquiry to ArbCom, I see that you have received an answer. I believe that they are monitoring the situation and have taken proactive steps to ensure that it doesn't get out of control, at least, with the parties involved that they have some control over. Now, there are a couple of accounts still trying to cause trouble with the AfD process and the NSS topics. I hope that they are earning themselves the same scrutiny from you that I am. Cla68 ( talk) 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

(outdenting and responding both to Mackan79 & Cla68)

I wasn't suggesting a complete topic ban - I specifically mentioned wiki and talk pages as being fine by me. The intent there was to allow some of the oversight you mention Cla68 - if someone appears to be trying to whitewash or blackwash one of those, you'd be free to call them on it or ask for help / independent review.

That you are afraid that you not participating would necessarily lead to that, unfortunately, is moving towards proving my point that you have enough of an axe to grind with Weiss that your COI is problematic.

I believe that for the most part the issue wasn't worth paying attention to / being concerned about until you (on Dec 25th) created that article and raised visibility more widely overall. The AFD response shows that a lot of people generally agree that the article is not grossly wrong. But a lot of people are concerned, some enough to recommend deletion, and many of those were not involved with the Mantanmoreland case in any way.

I think you're mentally trying to spin this into an "us vs them" of Weiss supporters vs you and your supporters. That is absolutely not where I'm coming from here. I haven't had a bit of sympathy for him since the time shift evidence came out in the arbcom case, regarding his travel to India for his wedding. He was gaming the system and lying to us (and, specifically included in "us", me particularly), for no good reason and with no good excuse, and he has not yet owned up to it or apologized.

I don't want Wikipedia turning into a battleground site going the other direction, either, though. The whole topic largely calmed down since the case closed, which was a good step. But little things here and there pop up on the horizon.

In this particular case, the policy concerns I was listing were not pulled out of thin air. I and others feel that they are descriptively applicable, though I don't think the article raised to the level of seriously abusive. I'm not acting as a banned editor's proxy here - this was raised to my attention by an ex-arbcom member and commented on privately by another, along with other admins, plus the public conversation here. I don't think they were particularly involved in the Mantanmoreland case or prior conflicts with you. I believe that I was asked to look because I'm currently one of the admins willing to take a risk and touch a live wire on-wiki, if there's a potential complex problem.

If another editor, unrelated to the Mantanmoreland case and your history with Weiss, had created the article and made those edits, this would be a different case. But it wasn't a random editor, it was you - and you and he have a history, and it's not good. That inexplicably links any article issues to the question of whether the article was intended as an attack, or slanted by personal feelings.

I'm not going to touch the AFD because it's not necessary. I'm not going to go stomp on Weiss because it's not necessary - he provoked the ire and attention of a wrathful Arbcom and is getting what he deserves for having done so, in violation of the ban. I think he's unlikely to get away with much around here for a while.

I do want to at least get to the point where you understand and acknowledge that your history with Weiss is a conflict of interest issue on articles about or featuring him, and subject to enhanced scrutiny (see WP:COI) and concern. It would defuse this issue if you took the half-step back I asked for - not editing those articles directly anymore, but talk and policy/wiki space pages ok. I think that is a balance that avoids COI concerns of significance but allows for oversight against others with COI doing wrong things unnoticed or unresponded to.

At the very least, you need to be more aware of this, and more open of it (disclosing on article talk page, etc). You may have assumed that everyone knows the history, but not everyone will. Open disclosure matters.

So does self awareness and acknowledgement. Even if consensus ends up with the article's ok and you didn't do anything specifically wrong, you need to edit with the awareness that there's a bias and latent COI there, and be more aware of and open to that being called out by others.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

If you said who contacted you, it might be easier to say why they might choose you in particular to contact. I grant your good intentions, but you do have your own history on the topic, you know. The second deletion discussion on Judd Bagley is actually interesting reading, for a little turn-about. [105] Did Sandifer take heat for that? As I recall it was just resolved at AfD. Doesn't mean I agree with what some of them were doing, or that I think this is an especially useful article, or that AfD solves everything. It's hard for me to disagree with Thatcher. [106] And maybe now I'll butt out. Mackan79 ( talk) 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Weiss and Robertson articles

Note to self: I've added suggested verbiage on the lawsuit topic to the talk pages of Gary Weiss and Julian Robertson. Cla68 ( talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!-- otherl left 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You have messages at the talk page of Weakopedia, a user who doesn't know how to add talkback templates. Weakopedia ( talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

No, I just resigned from recent changes patrol, not Wikipedia. Was giving me a headache, and it was like stomping on ants at the beach. Definitely interested in milhist. Thanks, MajorStovall ( talk) 02:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Re: Gary Weiss. I'd say that we need to give it another day or so to allow editors to comment on the suggested addition about Robertson's lawsuit before adding it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rocksanddirt"

well, sorta. since the weiss appologists are still protecting his articles, sometimes one does need to push them a bit. Notable information about a notable article he wrote belongs in his biography if we are ever going to pretend that this is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of resume's. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

wholey crap. just saw your note on the talk page. if he would just leave it alone, we could keep it to a reasonable biography of a minor journalist, and no one would care. With this ownwership, he encourages people who don't like him.  :/ -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

DMCer ™ 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Guettarda ( talk) 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• One body elected for lengthier terms (one year, though two years would be OK since it's far less stressful than ArbCom)
• That body accepts or rejects appeals — rejecting the overwhelming majority of them (see above about stress). Only truly intractable problems pass the bar; as I said on Lar's talk, Wikipedia actually functions well in the overwhelming majority of cases...
• That body then appoints/requests an ad hoc board of editors to serve as editors in chief. The process may involve community input, but that should be done carefully to avoid drama etc.
• That board stays with the article or suite of articles for an extended time period (six months?), working with editors to improve the text according to WP:5P...
• Decisions binding, unless new data comes out or whatever. A set of guidelines could be drawn up indicating when their decisions could be changed.
• Interested? I am very certainly neither skilled enough nor in possession of enough free time to push the idea.. where?... VP I guess... or wherever. •  Ling.Nut 11:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the reply. I have a stack of final exams to grade at the moment. In general, of course I like the idea (since I suggested it). I have very very little faith in the ability of Wikipedia to improve itself systemically. But we can discuss. I will get back to you in a while, perhaps a week or more... thanks! •  Ling.Nut 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

This is very interesting. Have you thought about turning it into an essay? Viriditas ( talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You work on it, then... Cla68 can as well if he wants... and I'll chip in later (no serious contribs for at least a week). Thanks! •  Ling.Nut 09:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

PS – Try to sneak an absolute ban on "talkback" templates into the fine print, if possible. •  Ling.Nut 09:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I think Ling.Nut's idea is much further developed than mine. If you're [Viriditas] referring to my response on his page, I still have a ways to go in working through it before I come up with some kind of idea that adequately arrives at some kind of truth on this issue. I'll keep working on it, at least in my mind, for awhile. Cla68 ( talk) 09:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Still, I found it impressive. Viriditas ( talk) 14:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

this was an exceptionally careless BLP prod; even if one cannot understand any Italian, the merest glance at Google News or Books would have shown the great number of good sources. It's a much more valuable service to place prods after at least looking. I apologize for expressing my impatience, but I have spent altogether too much time cleaning up after such as this, and I could do the necessary work much better if those who placed the prods did their share of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

actually, your prod on Ruslan Khasbulatov , Yeltsin's successor as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFR, was even more remarkable. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

or, for that matter, Sture Allén, a member of the Swedish Academy. I see almost all of your prods have been easily sourced by other editors, and you should really have done it yourself. This is the sort of work that harms the encyclopedia. Perhaps it will serve as an example of why drastic action of unsourced BLPs is unsuitable, because removing articles on such people is actively harmful when they can be improved so readily. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68, were you aware that the owner of Metropolis, Mark Devlin, had an axe to grind with baker's mother? Delvin took his battle to wikipedia and was outed on the Baker article and ended up getting permantely kicked off - there are real issues with any infromation that originates from Metropolis (devlin) or factlaundering that resulted from either local papers picking up info from his editorials or possibly from him initiating contact with them. This should all realy be discusses on the baker discussion page before more editing is done with regards to Devlin material

Hi Cla68, thanks for the note on my talk. In reviewing the Baker discussion pages I noticed that you were part of some of the discussion at that time. You may want to look in the discussion archives to refresh your memory as to how things transpired. To address the topic of Metropolis as a RS especially when it comes to the Nicholas Baker article:

1) The Baker article is a BLP, as such the more negative the information becomes the more stringent the requirement for the sources, Where as it might be acceptable to use a local newspaper or free add-supported magazine like Metropolis for a fairly non-contentious issue, that same source should not be used for potentially libelous information.

2)Metropolis (the publication) was actually participating in a controversy, as opposed to only reporting it. The obvious conflict of interest Devlin/Metropolis demonstrated, lack of editorial oversight, and clear attempts of ax-grinding means no, Metropolis is absolutely unsuitable as a reliable source in this instance and quite frankly contaminated beyond redemption - what is needed are actual reliable sources independent of it.

3)I don't think it's notable but, putting aside my personal perspective, after much discussion it was agreed on that the following sentence about Devlin's flip-flop (from support to criticism) was free of BLP issues & fact laundering: "Mark Devlin, who at the time was the publisher of Metropolis, initially supported the Nick Baker campaign but withdrew his support in 2004 and publicly criticized the support group's campaign tactics". This is sourced to the Swindon Advertiser, Gloucestershire Echo & The Citizen.

I'm putting a copy of this message on the Baker discussion page as it would be easier to continue the discussion there as other editors may want to weigh in Statisticalregression ( talk) 08:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Note to self to remember to follow this content RfC I just started. Cla68 ( talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I have been starting to work with ChrisO and Hipocrite on a proposal related to renaming the CRU hacking incident article. Based on your comments at the RfC it seems that you might be willing to sign on to this proposal. We are intending to approach people on their user pages to try and build some momentum and for this proposal and hopefully build a growing set of editors who are willing to accept this as a reasonable compromise and then stand together to defend it. Please stop by and weigh-in with your opinion and feel free to sign on if you are willing to help push this and defend it. Thanks. -- GoRight ( talk) 03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I just complained about Tarc at AN/I ( WP:ANI#Tarc's ongoing abuse). The least of it was this comment [107] that appears to have been directed at you. It was my 6th example (out of eight). Just FYI. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Re: [108] - I think the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing describes the copyvio argument. I have at present no comment on that or any other issue there, I just noticed copyvio in the recent changes and wanted to glance that way before logging off. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 ( talk) 05:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I see that you added the above book to the see also section of the IPCC page. I was wondering if you had read the book, and if so, if you could lend your voice in support of a reference I want to make re: how the book (in chapter 4, ‘The Hottest Year Ever’) charts thoroughly how the IPCC and the "Hockey Stick" graph were linked. At the moment, there is some resistance from certain editors for including the ref. All will become clear if you go to the discussion page. Best wishes, Jprw ( talk) 08:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I haven't read the book, I added the link after reading a synopsis of it in a third party source. I'll check out the discussion. Cla68 ( talk) 08:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for lending your voice to the debate. Jprw ( talk) 08:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Just letting you know, we have an auto-block finder. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

It seems like whenever someone gets unblocked, it takes awhile for the autoblocks to be manually resolved. It's a step that shouldn't be necessary. Cla68 ( talk) 07:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

True. I've forgotten to do it myself. There is a link to the tool in the unblock page though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your encouraging words. Funnily enough I had noticed how calm, reasoned and objective/neutral you yourself came across on those discussion pages -- in stark contrast to others I might mention, and the vehement and repeated flagrant violations of WP:BLP/WP:CIVIL I found very disturbing. I have no particular axe to grind re: Global Warming; the Booker reference seemed to just fit perfectly in that particular sub-section of the IPCC article (extremely well sourced account, etc.). But it feels now as though I am just banging my head against a wall. All the best and keep up the good work, Jprw ( talk) 07:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I have sort of been waiting for the RfC to conclude before bringing our proposal forward so as not to conflate the two but now it seems that it may have been sucked in anyways. I need to make a pass through reading the RfC comments and such to form my own opinion of what consensus, if any, was formed there. Can you summarize the status of the RfC and what, if anything, you feel the results thereof actually are? It seems to have spilled over into a move request and appears to be continuing there.  :) This is certainly a hot topic.

I was considering running a poll among the signatories to determine which variant of the current proposed name would be most preferred (since many of the signatories were lobbying for shorter versions). It may still make sense to do that but I wanted to make sure I understood where the RfC stood first. Thanks. -- GoRight ( talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, Cla68. If you have a moment, could you copyedit the short section named "Controversies" on Tsushima, Nagasaki? I think your help would be greatly appreciated since Arstriker ( talk · contribs) is not willing to compromise with me over a frivolous issue regarding fixing the current wrong and grammatically incorrect title, "Dispute[sig] incident". The original title of the section was "Racist attacks" and he altered it to "Protest[sig] of Japanese nationalists". As a compromise, I've suggested him to restore his first altered title "Protest[sig] of Japanese nationalists" instead of the weird current title. I guess a third person who knows Japanese history and culture would be helpful to end the frivolous dispute. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. The article has a much better shape now. I highly appreciate your help. If possible, could you also copy-edit the Korean claim section which seems to be more seriously in need of copyediting. Anyway, thanks again. -- Caspian blue 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks again. I tweaked a little bit since the cited source does not exist, and the mention of Liancourt Rocks without source can give a misimpression over the sovereignty and a POV concern. (that is not your responsibility of course, but the writer)-- Caspian blue 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

In our zeal to argue our corner on Wikipedia sometimes we can fail to see fully the implications of counter-arguments. You have several times now dismissed statements about the problems of citing Booker as a scholarly source--in essence that his use of sources has been impeached so many times on this and other issues, and the Press Complaints Commission itself has ruled on this. That he's a partisan for an extreme minority view on this is also well sourced. I think you should address such objections seriously. They're not, as you have claimed several times now, merely the personal opinions of Wikipedians. Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Where are the sources for your allegations? Again, we don't make these judgements, we allow our readers to look at the sources and decide for themselves on their credibility. Cla68 ( talk) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68. That was a refreshing breath of air in the article. Personally, I search about once a day for articles on climategate & global warming (it's fun to watch how this thing develops), so I've read a couple of hundred articles on the subject and I'm very well aware of what people call it (both pro and anti) it is highly amusing to watch the editors on the climategate talk pages trying to pretend the media haven't already dicided that the public know this episode by only one name.

And just to put you in the picture, I have twice in the last fortnight written >2000 word reports using the emails to illustrate points and so I've had read up on the background from a variety of source - although I have to admit I didn't even consider reading the wikipedia article - I don't trust an article written by people who don't even recognise the name given to the episode by the public and media. 88.110.16.230 ( talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Could you point me to where "the current wording was agreed to", the current wording (after your reversion) was, as far as I can tell, never stable, and never agreed to. You yourself supported the exact version that you just reverted (see Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 3#Sexuality verbiage still needs work). Here are some diffs from Feb. 10, Feb. 15, Feb. 16, Feb. 17, and Feb. 18 when the article was fully protected and we were in the early stages of discussion. I don't see anything in that discussion that would indicate firm agreement for the version to which you have reverted. One thing that was agreed to, was that the wording still needed adjustment because it was inaccurate. I've explained all this at Talk:Johnny Weir#Wording adjusted per archived discussion. Wine Guy ~Talk 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Moving this here for the obvious reasons. I am totally out of shape now and not running at all, but back in the day my wife and I ran together in a couple of marathons. We ran Chicago as a training run one year. My personal best was 3 hours 38 minutes. The others were between 3:45 and 4 hours.

My wife was actually into ultra-marathons for a while. She only ran one, a 50 miler. It was a race called Dances with Dirt and was hosted in Hell, Michigan. I was her support person and moved all her gear from one checkpoint to the next all along the way. It took her about 11 hours total to complete. There were a lot of people doing it, but a marathon was always more than enough for me!

Anyway, good luck. It should be fun no matter what! They always are.  :) (This is a statement that only a distance runner would understand.) -- GoRight ( talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for offering to report the PA. The distraction may not be worth it, the reviewing folks aren't likely to act. However, the editor has been warned to avoid PA against me multiple times. If no action now, then I guess there will more to report later. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

That's not the only PA that he's done recently, so that one is the proverbial straw. Cla68 ( talk) 07:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I have filed an enforcement request. Cla68 ( talk) 09:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Well seems like it was closed for want of an RFC/U. Thanks again for showing concern. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

I'm supposed to run the Tokyo Marathon this Sunday morning. Unlike you youngsters, I have to take some time to prepare and recover from it. I probably won't be around WP too much between now and Tuesday. Cla68 ( talk) 11:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The marathon is done. My time was 4:34. The weather was horrible, sleet, rain, and windy, I was overhydrated, and I can barely walk today. I'm really proud, however, to have done it. Cla68 ( talk) 03:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Congrats! Any marathon that you finish is a good marathon.  :) So, what are the crowds like for the Tokyo marathon on sleet, rain, and windy days? Don't worry, though, you'll recover quickly. A little Advil or Aspirin to help keep the inflammation down for a day or two works wonders. Hey, post a picture of your medal so I can see what the Tokyo one looks like. -- GoRight ( talk) 04:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey, where are you in this picture?  :) It must have been wicked fun in spite of the weather. -- GoRight ( talk) 04:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I'm about 75-100 meters from the front. I'm wearing a yellow runners cap but I can't find it in the crowd. Cla68 ( talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, and the crowds were great. Tokyoites apparently love to cheer on marathoners. I must have heard "Gambatte!" and "Gambarimasu!" 10,000 times. Cla68 ( talk) 04:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Well done! Pity about the weather, but there's a great "thank goodness I got through that" feeling at the end, even for relatively minor walks like I've been doing. The snow's been terrific here, but two feet of snow turns an easy hill walk into a real slog. Marathons are something else which I can't even aspire to, congratulations! . . dave souza, talk 09:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I very much appreciate your input in Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks#First Death. When you recover from your Marathon, I hope you will continue to input your opinion, since no compromises have been accepted and no consensus has been reached. ARTEST4ECHO ( talk) 16:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi - Feel free to chime in with the name discussion; you will recall that you agreed with the consensus to exclude names on the Incidents pages during the Monorail incident discussion back in July 2009. Hope you're doing well. SpikeJones ( talk) 04:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thx for suggesting the conversation stay on point as much as it can. (hey, even though we've discussed this very topic before and occasionally agree and disagree on the outcome depending on the breeze, we can recognize when civility needs to come into play at the same time) SpikeJones ( talk) 04:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 10:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian ( talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

your involvement in climate change advocacy [109] is a serious PA. Retract it William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Seriously? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

PA is not some sort of currency to be tossed around. Grow a thicker skin. The main violation in that statement is grammar. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"grow a thicker skin" is your contribution to a civil wikipedia? Wonderful. Perhaps you might care to suggest that the "skeptics" do the same William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"PA" may not be the correct term for it; "unsubstantiated allegation of WP:COI" is more like it. Either way, WMC's rv in question was info that didn't match its source, and this part of the talk page discussion was just some silly escalation. More along, gentlemen and ladies, lesson learned (don't make accusations, cite sources properly), nothing more to see here... Awickert ( talk) 20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I mistakenly used the wrong source for that information. I've fixed it. And WMC did not answer my question. Cla68 ( talk) 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The climate change literature is huge and it's easy to latch on to a couple of controversial papers. And pretty much everyone has an opinion. This is one of the things that makes it frustrating because it is hard to find and compile basic info. Some of the best sources for this information on WP are William Connolley and S.B.H. Boris. I am somewhat active in this area of WP, though it really is outside my professional expertise, and am happy to give you a hand if you're wondering about inclusion / noninclusion of material.

The basic point of that scatterbrained paragraph was to say: the literature is a mess and if you're thinking of citing it, it can help to chat with an expert first who can point you to the broader body of knowledge, and there are some of those folks on Wikipedia. Awickert ( talk) 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I can`t agree with you on this at all i`m afraid. Desmogblog is an attack blog full of lies wit hno editorial control at all. But i noticed how quickly you knocked out an article about them, would you care to perhaps help me out with this one? [110] thanks mark nutley ( talk) 21:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If a blog is noteworthy, I don't see any problem with giving their opinon on stuff and letting the reader decide what is true. I'll check Infotrac and NewsStand about the Watts blog. Cla68 ( talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the help :-) I created the article but for some reason it seems to want to redirect to watts article? any idea`s on how to fix this? mark nutley ( talk) 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Regarding the history, Spencer R. Weart, who is well qualified as a historian with a physics background, [111] has written The Discovery of Global Warming - A History, 2008 edition available from amazon with an extended version available free online – its timeline gives an overview with links to more detailed sections. The IPCC outlines its own past, and their FAQ discusses a number of issues covered in the WG1 report. I did note before that Philip Ball in his review recommended Richard A. Muller's Physics for Future Presidents for a balanced view of the hockey stick episode, available from Amazon. I've not read it or other books on the subject, and can't give any first hand guidance, but if I find good recommendations I'll let you know. Thanks for asking, dave souza, talk 19:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla - it is clear from recent stuff on my talk page that you understanding of the science, and indeed your understanding of how to understand the science, is... well, since the civility police are watching, let us say that it is weak. I'd be grateful if you wouldn't interrupt conversations on my talk page with your lack of understanding. Please use the article talk pages if you want to discuss the articles and have nothing of value to say William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I hope you're beginning to realise why, even if the Guardian had said what you thought it had said, we would not resort that as fact. If a newspaper were our only source on science, we would have no choice, but there are far more reliable sources on these subjects and newspapers are wrong on science at least as often as they are right, if only because the reporters frequently do not understand what they are writing about well enough to do a decent job. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Because of course no scientist has ever been wrong, right tony? mark nutley ( talk) 16:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have no idea what this argument is about (although I'll bet it has to do with global climate change), but I would like to point out to Mark that "of course, scientists are normally wrong" as well.</sarcasm> One scientist can be wrong, but a grand consensus of scientists? Not nearly as likely... I agree with Tasty that more substantial sources would be preferable, but I don't see anything wrong with also adding sources to papers like the New York Times—a renowned paper with a good reputation for accurate articles. — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 16:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

WMC, here's the thing you don't seem to understand, we (WP) don't care who is right or is wrong. We just report what the sources say and the reader then draws their own conclusions. You can't remove sourced information from major newspapers just because you personally disagree with it. If you have scientific papers that contradict what the newspaper is reporting, then add that information to the article as well. Don't just delete the stuff you don't like and leave it at that. It's wrong, and contrary to how a wiki works. Your approach may work on your own personal website, if you have one, but not here. Cla68 ( talk) 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Or rather, we would put what the scientific paper says, and leave out how the newspaper interprets it unless we're talking about social reaction to science rather than science itself. Otherwise we'd end up sourcing either good or mistaken interpretations alongside the original source, which would muddy the waters. As a matter of fact, I'd rather not cite newspapers at all for science, because of the above and if there isn't a scientific work on which they're reporting, they're just making stuff up. And there's almost always a spin. <sigh>I suppose this is why I've been avoiding global warming related stuff.</sigh> Awickert ( talk) 06:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

So far, I haven't seen any evidence that the paper was makig stuff up. The information has been removed, but nothing has been added explaining the phenomenom that the newspaper is claiming occurred. If there is a scientific paper out there talking about what happened, that would be better than the newspaper. It appears, however, that the newspaper is all we have. So, we report the information and the reader decides if it is true or not based on the source. We don't decide that for them. Cla68 ( talk) 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

In the situations that I have seen in which the newspaper is all we have on the topic of global warming, I generally see the writing approach one of two endmembers: "global warming is a commie hoax" or "global warming is going to kill us all tomorrow". The Guardian typically falls into the latter of these two fallacies, as does it in this section. While The Guardian is a WP:RS, I personally feel that it is doing our readers a severe disservice to put an article that quotes the probably off-the-top-of-the-head speculations of a couple scientists on a par with what we see in the mainstream scientific literature that has been vetted and confirmed. I think that this is one of the great things about WP:DEADLINE: we can hold ourselves to a high standard and can afford to wait until greater accuracy is possible and recent events are put into a broader context. And there really is such a fantastic body of scientific literature about the Gulf Stream that I think it's a pity to put such weight on sensationalist reporting. Awickert ( talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, I do remember as a child the "global cooling" scare of the early 1970s. I remember seeing these terrifying reports of an impending ice age on the evening news and my parents watching it wide-eyed and then asking each other how we could prepare for years of freezing temperatures in the summer (we lived in Alabama). So, I can see the point about being suspicious about media hysteria. The newspapers are usually able to find some scientist somewhere to give them a good, supporting quote, aren't they? Cla68 ( talk) 07:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's the exact concern that I have, and if you look through the scientific literature, there's not much more than a couple over-trumpeted papers about global cooling that were unfortunately not sufficiently rebutted by the rest of the scientific community. I have seen scientists I know who, on TV, have had their quotes sliced and butchered by a reporter who had already decided what that person was supposed to say or who simply didn't understand them because of insufficient background in the topic and/or physical intuition. And I really disapprove of scare tactics used by some environmentalists and some uninformed members of the Left. And that's the thing. I really wish I could use the newspapers in good conscience, and quite a bit of reporting in them is quite good. But the juicy and controversial stuff is far too often atrocious. Awickert ( talk) 07:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thinking about this further, I'm generally happy to cite newspapers on facts (thermohaline circulation weakening for 10 days), but not on interpretations. Awickert ( talk) 08:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Not even on facts without a basic sanity check. I recall a recent story where the reporter consistently wrote "altitude" where it should have been "latitude." (There was never a correction.) The non-US press tends to do a little better, in my experience. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 12:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That's depressing... Awickert ( talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

To create some article so the redlinks may begone :) [112] Can you use infotrack to check for more stuff? This is all i can find via google Thanks mark nutley ( talk) 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Alright! Yes, I checked Infotrac and NewsStand yesterday and got about 30 hits on this topic. I'll list them on your page with hidden article texts. Cla68 ( talk) 22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I think it would be great if both the DeSmogBlog and Watts Up With That articles could reach Good Article at the same time. Along those lines, I just asked WMC if he would be willing and able to take the lead in that effort. Cla68 ( talk) 00:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Erm, ok i know i`m not the brightest at times but what do you mean by hidden? If you think certain editors will allow WUWT to ever achieve anything other than a stub (which is what they are aiming for, tony already having done it in fact) then you are far more optimistic than I :-) mark nutley ( talk) 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

To avoid a copyright violation I hide the article text within the citation. You can see the text when you edit the page. I definitely expect those editors to be willing, in the spirit of collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, to expand and enlarge the Watts Up article in an objective and neutral manner, just like we're trying to do with the DeSmogBlog article. If they decline to do so, then I plan on doing it once we're finished with the DeSmogBlog article. Cla68 ( talk) 22:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla, i am unsure how to use what you have found as refs. There are no url`s for me to cite from. And a lot of the material, although it mentions the center seems to focus on the dalai lama. Thanks mark nutley ( talk) 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I saw enough information there to start an article. I'll take care of it, hopefully today or tomorrow. Like I said, once DeSmogBlog is nominated for GA, I'll start on Watts Up, unless those other editors I asked to do so have gotten it finished already. Cla68 ( talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, I started it but an only about half-way through the references. I'll try to finish it up tonight. Cla68 ( talk) 06:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Cool, i`ll just get an admin to delete the one i started then, way to go :-) mark nutley ( talk) 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree that involved admins should stay out of sanctions enforcement. In that spirit I would like to broaden your arbcom request to include discussion of Lar's misconduct. It makes more sense to address the broader issue at hand than to split things up piecemeal, don't you think? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't know of any misconduct on Lar's part. Cla68 ( talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

All the more reason to work together, sharing our information and cooperating. We both have an interest in the integrity of the sanctions regime and can present a better case together than individually. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Addendum: I'm not sure this rises to the level of a request for a full-blown arbitration case. It seems more like a request for clarification. What do you think? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Nope, it isn't a clarification. Stephan knows the rules about using admin authority. Requests for ArbCom review of admin actions goes in the requests section not clarification. Cla68 ( talk) 01:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I do not see where policy dictates such. Perhaps I have overlooked it, in which case I would appreciate a pointer. Have you "exhausted all other methods of dispute resolution" as required by policy, or do you instead consider that this arises to the level of an "emergency"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

We'll see what the Committee says. Cla68 ( talk) 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

FYI... I'm not sure how you managed to do this, but I had to restore my previous edits due to your inadvertent revert. No worries, but you may want to keep an eye out in the future. Viriditas ( talk) 00:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, do you've any interest to plan a Wikipedian meetup in Tokyo around April 2010? -- Saki ^talk 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I responded on your talk page. Cla68 ( talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

So how about April 3, 2010 at afternoon time anywhere in Tokyo? Please confirm your attendance here. -- Saki ^talk 01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

How about April 10 then? -- 122.208.43.18 ( talk) 15:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm just butting in here, but that's still short notice for most people. Maybe you should aim for the end of April? — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 20:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

April 24 would work fine now :) -- Saki ^talk 09:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. I notice you're in Japan - I used to live in Suzuka, Mie-Ken. Miss the place! Anyway, see you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve ( talk) 20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

For you to look in infotrac again for any refs about this mob American Policy Center an anon ip a7nd it for some reason. Hoping you can get some stuff to pad it out. Cheers mark nutley ( talk) 17:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Listed on your talk page. Cla68 ( talk) 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks, i`m still trying to figure out how to find the urls so i can use them as refs though ? mark nutley ( talk) 23:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

And again thanks, if you have a second or two to spare could you take a gander at this and give me your opinion on it thus far? mark nutley ( talk) 01:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You keep saying this and it sort of makes sense, but how does this help me win my content dispute?  :) A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is one of those catchy but meaningless phrases. We have a fellow over at greenhouse effect who insists that everyone from Joseph Fourier onward has gotten it all wrong, and that the greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist. He of course has no sources to back him up, and people have been incredibly patient in explaining things to him, yet he keeps asserting over and over and over and over that he's correct. Pray, how does one "cooperate, collaborate, and compromise" with such a person? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You use the content dispute resolution process. Cla68 ( talk) 22:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This fellow stretches even my bounds of WP:AGF. I've spent enough hours trying to politely explain, and he just repeats himself or ignores me. I suppose I could use the content dispute resolution process, but it seems relatively straightforward as (a) he has no real sources, and (b) though this doesn't count for wiki, he is making a fundamental error with conservation equations. In any case, I've just decided it's not worth my effort. I hope you don't mind my stalking your talk page though, and I do agree that when possible, collaboration and cooperation (and compromise when both parties are correct) is the way to do things. Awickert ( talk) 05:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

If someone just consistently refuses to work well with others then I guess we're supposed to use the RfC-RfAR process. I'm sure you're well aware of it as well as how time consuming and painful it is. This may be one of the biggest weaknesses of a wiki, besides cabalism, which is how to deal with dedicated editors who just won't cooperate. Cla68 ( talk) 06:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'm allergic to ArbComm. Thanks for understanding! Awickert ( talk) 06:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there -- you seem to have considerable experience in getting articles up to GA and FA status. I'd like your advice on how I can get this [113] up to such a standard. Please don't be afraid to be brutally honest)) Thanks, Jprw ( talk) 11:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I will look at it hopefully later today or tomorrow. Cla68 ( talk) 06:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I made a few suggestions. I think that article is looking fairly good already. Cla68 ( talk) 07:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Great stuff. I have now fitted in background sections both here and here. Thanks for all the help. Jprw ( talk) 17:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. – Joe N 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry to bother you again but I have just finished doing a chunk of work on the above book, however, I don't have the facilities to scan the book's cover and thus create an image for the article. I understand that you have a copy of the book, and following on from a related discussion on Mark Nutley's page was wondering if you could help. Best, Jprw ( talk) 10:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Done. Cla68 ( talk) 12:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Fantastic work, thank you. Jprw ( talk) 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68,

I have nominated The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee. As someone who has not contributed to the article (or at least has made a very insignificant contribution), but who would I assume have an interest in this subject, I am writing to ask you if you would be willing to review it. Thanks in advance for your help, and at the same time I'll understand if you're too busy. All the best, Jprw ( talk) 08:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the advice and encouragement re: the above. The crucial thing it seems is to abide by the letter of WP criteria. Cheers, Jprw ( talk) 13:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Okay Cla68, I don't know what put a bee under your bonnet regarding me. But you've stretched my ability to assume good faith to the breaking point. Please stop your personal attacks. I didn't request that your account be blocked for harassment simply because after looking at your contributions to the encyclopedia I was impressed and pleased. However, at this point let me just say PLEASE STOP YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS AND HARASSMENTS!!! Sincerely, TallMagic ( talk) 12:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Please do not YELL. If you have evidence of harassment or personal attacks, please post it - here or on my talk page.Otherwise, you are simply screaming at a co-editor. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I believe that this is what caused TallMagic to start yelling. Multiple people have warned Cla68 to let TallMagic maintain his privacy and to stop linking him to his old username which (presumably) is or is close to his real life name, in violation of WP:OUTING. Screaming about it isn't the best way to go about it, especially since this matter already has admin attention, but I can understand being frustrated. -- Atama 頭 15:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

If nothing has happened since, then the situation is already handled. Cla has received feedback and has not continued his behavior. If he does, I suggest going to ANI, as this, poorly phrased and in all caps as it is, probably meets the requirement of trying to discuss with the other editor. I see below that Cla is not addressing the specific concern, but rather objecting to the use of the word "harassment". This is unhelpful. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It did continue. I did go to ANI. [114] TallMagic ( talk) 15:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Then you've handled it correctly. Do avoid the yelling, though, ok? :-) KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 15:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

If there has ever been one time in my life that I felt yelling was appropriate, it was that time. Unfortunately, nothing seemed to work. However, thank you for the advice and the smilie. :-) TallMagic ( talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

(To TallMagic) Your use of the word "harrassment" cheapens the term and experiences of those who have been real victims of harrassment, like this guy. This attack website on Derek Smart lists "Bill Huffman" as the site's owner. An account by that same name has been trying to control or heavily influence that article's content for some time. Also, I have serious concerns about the use of the archived version of the Oregon database in order to add negative information to the WIU article. I will continue to notify you so that you can give your side as I continue to look into this using Wikipedia's various administrative forums. Cla68 ( talk) 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the offer, but KDP kindly emailed me a copy. See that talk page for details. Cheers -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Just so you'll know, a thread has been opened on the WP:ANI board about you. You can find that here [115]. Dayewalker ( talk) 06:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Would you be good enough to look over the following to ensure i am not breaking any blp stuff with this article, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I made some suggstions at the bottom. Cla68 ( talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

By the way, you might need to start an article on the Bishop Hill blog first before starting one on Montford. Cla68 ( talk) 23:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your suggestions, I also followed your advice on doing an article for the blog first [116] mark nutley ( talk) 12:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I already searched for sources on the blog, and I didn't find very many. It's Alexa rank appears to be fairly low. I'm not sure if it's notable enough enough for its own article, but I'll see what you come up with. Cla68 ( talk) 12:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The BBC mentioned what the blogs commentators wrote, i figure thats pretty notable :-) mark nutley ( talk) 13:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Well i can`t find anything else about the blog, if you have ten could you give it the once over before i put it into mainspace? It be here,thanks mark nutley ( talk) 09:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

That's new to me, what you've done at desmogblog. Is that the new standard, extracting citations and putting them at the end of the page? Can you point me to any guideline on this? Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually, Kim D. Peterson put the refs that way soon after I started the article and was the first time I had seen refs done that way also. I thought that system appeared to be more efficient, because as the article expands and refs are used multiple times, editors won't have to search through to find previous citations to format the "ref name"s correctly. Cla68 ( talk) 22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hmm, it may be better, but I'd like to see an official notification about it before I start using it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

"Official notification"? Since when has anything like that been a part of the chaos that is Wikipedia? Cla68 ( talk) 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It's a major wp:MOS issue, I would have thought. Issue discussed here. ► RATEL ◄ 05:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I've come up with an alternative form of wording that follows the Oxburgh report's conclusions more closely and gets over the difficulties with "impropriety". What do you think of this version? -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

[117] Here, for some reason all my times refs are pointing to the same spot in the article (ref1) but they should all be seperate refs to seperate times articles, can you let me know on the talk page were the hell i have gone wrong please, Thanks mark nutley ( talk) 17:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68, eight days left for Tokyo meetup but still nobody else confirmed their attendance and I do not think so but we should wait until otherwise either we will have to postponed the meetup or go for pre-meetup gathering... -- Saki ^talk 06:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Director of Creative Commons Japan has just confirmed his attendance and perhaps we should expect some more peoples belongs to CC in the meetup so you could start making plans now. Anyways, everyone is asking for exact venue and time, so what do you say? -- Saki ^talk 15:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I do not think so if we really should have to make reservation in advance for a very few peoples. We just have to decide of a appropriate location where we could meetup and then, we can look for any good restaurant around. Do you any best place in Shibuya or Shinjuku? 5 pm is best. -- Saki ^talk 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Feel not so good to read that you are not going to attend this meetup anymore but nothing to do. Im going to remove your name on attendees list from meetup page. Thanks for your time.-- Saki ^talk 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Im going to cancel Tokyo meetup at the moment, we had only 5 confirmed attendees from which 3 Wikipedians which I dont think are enough for a meetup when the city is Tokyo. Will wait for a right time ahead. -- Saki ^talk 12:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know, I've blocked this account. He claims to be retired, so it shouldn't matter anyway, but this account has been used in violation of WP:SOCK, so if he wants to go back to using his original account (as you showed me) then I'll let him do so, but he has no justification for using any other accounts. To avoid stirring up drama, I haven't left any sockpuppet templates or other block templates on that account and I won't, but anybody reviewing the block log will see that he was blocked and why. -- Atama 頭 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You are now at 4RR on DeSmogBlog. I suggest that you self-revert. You have reinserted the same information (in various forms) 4 times - despite it being removed by others, and an ongoing discussion where you are the only person who is for the information. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC) - retract. I was miscounting - since i behaved and didn't revert you. You are only at 3RR - which is still bad - and you are still ignoring what everyone is saying. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 11:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

[118] I have wmc yet again interfering in an rfc, i believe it is written in a neutral manner. Could you please look and give me your opinion, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. I thought I'd respond on your talk page rather than within the RS/N. I'd be happy to look over any proposed RfC on the above and had, in fact, considered posting one myself on the subject. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll try to get one drafted in the next couple of days. I promised to have a content RfC done for a different article by today so I need to take care of that one first. Cla68 ( talk) 05:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Perhaps I'll offer one in this space before you then. Whatever works. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 05:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Sounds fine if you're ready to run with it. Cla68 ( talk) 05:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

How about the following...

An RS/N is in progress relating to WP:RS considerations for citing website traffic data returned by internet traffic reporting websites such as " Alexa" and " Quantcast". Comments/observations are solicited and welcome.

-- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I think the discussion should have it's own, separate page and be structured as an RfC. Later today I'll make a draft of what I'm talking about. Cla68 ( talk) 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I believe resolution is best served by approaching attendant issues in some logical order. If the community determines that Alexa web traffic data reporting does not meet the mandates of WP:RS, every other question becomes moot.

As to a proposed RfC, the prevailing "issue", at the moment and as I see it, is Alexa WP:RS. While "RfC"'s are normally placed within an article talk page, WP:RS/N presents a different situation as the RS/N "Talk" page is not designed to host a specific issue but rather the RS/N process itself. Whether an RfC might be placed within the RS/N itself to solicit more input is unclear to me. Would it be more appropriate to place one in the article "talk" soliciting input to the RS/N? I just don't know. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 11:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I was thinking of a stand-alone RfC, like this one. Since over 1,000 Wikipedia articles use Alexa or Quantcast, I think a stand-alone RfC is justified. I would also ask the Signpost to announce it, to try to get maximum input. I'm not sure if I'm going to get to the draft tonight ( JST) but should have something soon. Cla68 ( talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You are, of course, welcome to approach this in any fashion you deem appropriate. However, the issue of Alexa WP:RS is a relatively simple one and really shouldn't require much drafting of anything. I strongly recommend that you consider utilizing the "KISS" principle first before some additional "in depth" RfC approach. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 12:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

FYI, I have placed an RS/N notice within the respective talk pages of the "Alexa", "Quantcast" and "Compete" articles. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 12:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

An admin has responded to my inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RfC for WP:RSN? and suggested WP:CENT as, perhaps, an avenue of approach. As you have noted, with Alexa data having been cited some 900 times in Wikipedia articles and since WP:CENT is designed to support "discussions on matters that have a wide impact", perhaps you might want to consider its use in this case? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 12:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

[119] of WMC following MN to other forums? Thanks -- BozMo talk 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok. Misunderstood what you meant by forums. -- BozMo talk 12:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

[120] if you have a few minutes, i`d rather not have WMC mess it up again, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 12:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

But i need some help :), yes again. [121] i am having to rewrite this as the bishop hill blog is more than likely to get merged into it, i`d rather have it done properly than in a rush. If you have a bit of time could you look over it for me? thanks mark nutley ( talk) 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The edit summary for this seems to imply that he could justify his comment if only he had time. This annoys me a little. Should I just cop it? Thepm ( talk) 07:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, Cla68. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

[122] since in general you risk turning a situation where his degree of involvement becomes the issue. Everyone on the page knows who is who and who thinks what. -- BozMo talk 07:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Remember I took this to ArbCom before. Like I said there, the enforcement needs to be run as a tight ship, or else it will quickly degenerate into a paper tiger. Cla68 ( talk) 22:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

BozMo, IIRC, Schulz' top 5 articles edited are all CC articles. His assertion that he is "Lar uninvolved" is ludicrous. ATren ( talk) 01:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey. Just figured I'd remind you for future reference. Apparently it's acceptable to use AN/I instead of the probation page, even with respect to climate change articles.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 08:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Talk:Judith_Curry#Curry.27s_notability.... Guettarda ( talk) 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Please remove the copyright violating texts (i'm not complaining) - since i have found and produced a link to each and every article that you cited. So there is no need for it. [123] -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 08:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You have now misrepresented my comment on the AfD - please self-revert and do not edit my comments. You may edit your own comments - but not mine - thank you. This is a warning. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 06:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I removed my refs and the accompanying texts as you requested, and left your links. You need to be more specific about what your concern is. Cla68 ( talk) 06:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Well - i've restored the text that you removed, you changed:

You have got to be kidding? None of these articles are about Climate Audit, and only one of these mention it in more than 1 paragraph, 5 of the references mention it in a brief one sentence:

Here are the links to the actual articles/Op-Ed's - and i've written how much CA is mentioned - as well as put a paranthesis around what focus it has (Climate Audit or McIntyre).

Into:

:Here are the links to the actual articles/Op-Ed's - and i've written how much CA is mentioned - as well as put a paranthesis around what focus it has (Climate Audit or McIntyre).

Changing the meaning rather completely. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Apology [124] accepted. I probably overreacted to what may have been a mistake, since the mistake made my comment look as if it meant something different. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 06:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This edit] is a partial revert of my previous edit, in that it removes critical descriptors. It's your 2nd revert on the page today. Please self-revert. Yilloslime ^T _C 05:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

That's not a revert at all. — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 05:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure is it. The original edit noted the media mentions were "in passing." This phrase has been removed, and no alternate wording expressing the same idea has been introduced. So it's a revert. I added an idea, Cla removed it--that's a revert. Yilloslime ^T _C 06:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It looks like he edited your edit. If he had removed it entirely, I would have called it a partial revert, but he just tweaked it. Stop wikilawyering, start collaborating, kthnxbai. — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 06:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

An idea was expressed in my edit which is now completely missing. This goes beyond "tweaking" and into the realm of "reverting". Yilloslime ^T _C 06:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Five > "a few," and despite most being "in passing," it being even mentioned as a important blog by many major press outlets is probably a good indicator of notability, and I'm not convinced that is a necessary qualifier. — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 06:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

(ec) I'm talking more about the "in passing", and the question is not about the merit of the edit in the first place, but whether Cla's edit constitutes a revert. Lemme put it to you this way: if I now go add the word "briefly" to the end of the sentence in question, would you not consider that a revert? Yilloslime ^T _C 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there Cla. I was wondering if you would be willing to agree to a mentorship of sorts for User:Marknutley. I believe that one of the places where Mark has room for improvement is with sources, and I was hoping that someone like yourself, with a great deal of experience with high quality content writing, could teach him to properly differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. You can see the proposal I posted here. Do you think you could be the "long-term contributor in good standing" that I mentioned? NW ( Talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This historical revision shows SBHB and Stephan Schulz creating the terms "microLar" and "milliLar" to describe bias. That was after ANOTHER admin blocked WMC. I also believe it preceded most of the diffs that SBHB himself produced, but I'll have to check. ATren ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

3 of Boris's diffs come from before, the rest were after. I will try to dig up earlier examples. ATren ( talk) 16:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Here are a list of diffs from the last 6 months or so, if you want to incorporate them into your RFC view:

From WMC:

• [125] "Diffs please, not Lar-like ambiguity" - gratuitous mention
• [126] "Lar's team" - how is this worse than "cadre"?
• [127] "Tell Lar he's being silly"
• [128] "Lar won't rest..."
• [129] "Lar has no shame": PA
• [130] "Don't accept ...Lar's (word)"
• [131]
• [132] "I think LHVU and Lar's general competence and fitness to rule on this is neatly summarised by their inability to spell Ratel" - BLATANT PA
• [133] "Lar has lost contact with reality" - BLATANT PA
• [134] "You will make Lar sad" - mocking
• [135] "Lar will get upset" - mocking
• [136]
• [137] mocking
• [138] "Too much to expect Lar to bother"
• [139] "do you get it now?" - condescension.

From Boris:

• [140] commentary on Lar's worldview
• [141] Snark
• [142] adds Lar to arbitration to make a WP:POINT
• [143] "stretching uninvolved to the breaking point"
• [144] implies that Lar supports equal coverage for flat earth
• [145] "there are some people you will never reach (cough Lar cough)"
• [146] commentary on Lar's rambling
• [147] mocking

There's also the "millilar" crap above. Tonight I'm going to search Stephan's edits, and perhaps Guettarda. Of course, if you don't use these for the RFC, they might be useful if this goes to arbcom, which seems inevitable. ATren ( talk) 13:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I will be putting these and any others you find in the RfC. I don't necessarily agree that this needs to go to ArbCom. I have confidence that the team of admins currently involved with the climate change probation will act and put a stop to all of this nonsense which the diffs above show is going on. Cla68 ( talk) 22:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Guettarda:

• [148] misrepresents Lar as baiting WMC, when it was WMC who called him "old fruit" after Lar explicitly asked him not to.
• [149] "or maybe my expectations are too high" - snarky, condescending comment
• [150] "…and it's my own fault if I allow myself to be shocked" - expanded snark
• [151] refers to Lar's "obvious bias", accuses Lar of supporting "anti-science" activism
• [152] - accuses Lar of bias, back in February

Stephan Schulz:

• [153] new term "Lar uninvolved", which mocks Lar's involvement status again
• [154] Lar's "posturing (is) ridiculous and counterproductive"
• [155] "Neutral Lar" mocking his neutrality
• [156] more "microLar" - defines a "Lar" as a unit of measure so large that a unit value would approach black hole density
• [157] "microLar" - using Lar's supposed bias as a unit of measure
• [158] "...has to be the stupidest thing somebody has said in this discussion for a long time."

I trust you understand why I have taken this action, I had lifted the Bishop Hill (blog) protection from a slow edit war after reviewing the talkpage and determined that discussion had resumed. I realise that you were undoing actions which also appeared against the spirit and word of the lifting of the protection, but two wrongs do not make a right. I will watch this page and will action any request to have this block reviewed at an appropriate venue, and - since I am on my lunchbreak and will not be available until this evening - am happy for another party to action any proceeding (and for you to be unblocked under an undertaking not to revert the article again). I regret that I have had to take these actions. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

If you agree to a voluntary restriction of 0RR on that article, I am willing to unblock you per LHVU's indication, in his absence. Just fill out an unblock request and I'll get to it. The Wordsmith ^Communicate 13:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Recuse from unblocking, but I think that there is a good case to be made that reverting blanking isn't edit warring, and that the edits were justified. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think there is a good case to be made that the redirect (not blanking) was the correct solution. No information was lost. Had Cla been reverting vandalism, he would have said so at the time, not in arrears William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have no interest in ChrisO's suggestion that you're hounding him. But I will say that discussing an issue with another editor is step one in dispute resolution. The drama-boards are much further down the list. Please start with step one next time.-- Chaser ( talk) 23:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68, your continued attempts at retaliating against me for your recent block need to stop. I'm always open to refactoring comments - you just need to ask. Taking it to AN/I without even bothering to ask me to refactor is not on. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

ChrisO, you've been editing in a higly disruptive manner for something like a week now. Blanking the section in DeSmogBlog, attacking a new editor at the Bishop Hill article talk page, now attacking a living person which is a big wiki no-no. You're an experienced editor so you should know that we're not allowed to talk about living people that way. I think you need to step away from the AGW articles for awhile. I'll cross-post this to your page so that it will count as a step in dispute resolution. Cla68 ( talk) 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You're an experienced editor too, and I'm pretty sure you know the policy against harassment. Lay off it now. It does not show you in a good light. If you have a concern about something I've posted, bring it up on my talk page and I'll resolve it, but don't go running to AN/I in a blatant attempt to get me sanctioned without even giving me a chance to resolve the issue. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Not helpful. Not what I meant at all.-- Chaser ( talk) 01:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi! I'm aokomoriuta, mainly active on Japanese Wikipedia. I'm also a member of 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会(Wikimedia Kansai), which is an unofficial user group of Wikimedia in Kansai region.

On May 15th (next Saturday), We have the 1st "Kansai Wikimedia Unconference"（関西ウィキメディア勉強会） in Osaka. Sessions are expected to be in Japanese, but you are of course welcome to give your presentation in English though.

Please give a look to Wikimedia Kansai's Webpage for more information. If you have some questions, Email me or wmkansai at gmail dot com.

I hope you join us!-- aokomoriuta ( talk) 10:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla, I think the evidence against 2/0 is overwhelming if you want to escalate this to arbcom. I have repeatedly asked 2/0 to temper his actions on this probation, because he has a history of over-reacting against one side while defending the other. Take a look at his log of blocks over the last 6 months and it's practically a who's who of the "skeptic" side of this debate, without a single sanction against the other side. This alone is not an indictment, but if you examine the actions he did NOT take, particularly his passionate, 20-point defense of WMC after one of WMC's temper tantrums, his harsh actions against skeptics are all the more suspect. He's the anti-Lar: whereas Lar tends to speak his mind but ultimately respects consensus, 2/0's discussion is impeccably calm and neutral, while his actions are clearly one-sided.

I don't have a lot of free time these days, but I can perhaps collect a bunch of diffs for you to build a case, if you choose. ATren ( talk) 13:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Also, Polargeo just wheel-warred on Bishop Hill. I've confronted him on his talk; do you think that should go to arbcom too? He's clearly involved, and he clearly wheel-warred, so it's a serious transgression of two serious rules. His reversal 15 minutes later is mitigating, but I still think arbcom should decide. What do you think? ATren ( talk) 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Lawrence Solomon is not a reliable source on anything in the area of climate change. His column has been riddled with errors, and his Deniers book, which essentially reprints this series, is not better. Please don't use him even for peacocking - find a real source. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 12:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have been using Solomon's book just to list background academic and career information. Do you have anything that contradicts anything that I have added so far? If not, then there isn't a problem. Cla68 ( talk) 12:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

By the way, two of the 35 or so scientists that Solomon profiled disputed his depiction of their stance, and two of five book reviewers took issue with the accuracy of his book. In fact, I'm the one who found and addedone of those reviews to the book article. So, we don't appear to have a majority opinion in RS that Solomon's book is "riddled with errors". Cla68 ( talk) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

2 out of 35 explicitly and publicly disputed his depiction (actually, AFAIK Shaviv did so as well - that makes at least 3). That is not a reliable source. As for the 5 reviews: One is in the Moonie paper, two are by conservative think tank fellows. The other two are critical. It does not matter if a non-RS gets some things right - it's still not a good source. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

One of those two (Weiss) isn't discussed in the book. Do you have a source for Shaviv? Nevertheless, the book qualifies as a reliable source according to WP's verifiability policy. Anyway, so far I've only used it to source uncontroversial bio information. Cla68 ( talk) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but it clearly matches "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." in WP:V. Note that original publication was as a series of editorials/blog posts, i.e. sources only good for the opinion of the author, not for facts. Republication of the same stuff does not change this. And the publisher at [159] does not have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, either. See here for Shaviv. Do you think such a list of errors is a sign of good fact-checking? BTW, assuming you have the book - are the listed errors (like the 15% and the 2.5x) fixed? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 07:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The original publication was a series of editorials/columns published by The National Post which definitely meets the definition of a reliable source. The Post is putting its name, as the publisher, on the editorials. The book publisher's website shows that they like to publish books with a conservative viewpoint, but doesn't say that they don't have a reputation for fact checking. If you're more comfortable with attribution, I can put "According to Lawrence Solomon" at the beginning of every paragraph that uses his book as a source which doesn't have back-up from a second source. I don't have a problem with that. Thank you for the link to Shaviv's response. I'll add that to the Deniers article. Shaviv doesn't dispute, however, Solomon's information on Shaviv's academic career. So, I still haven't seen anything that anyone disputes any of the curriculum vitae information contained in Solomon's book, which so far is all I'm using the book for. Cla68 ( talk) 07:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Done. Although Shaviv's and Solanki's personal websites wouldn't normally qualify as reliable sources, I think they're ok in this case to give their side. Solanki's post, however, is now a dead link, but I left it in anyway. Cla68 ( talk) 07:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

"The Post is putting its name, as the publisher, on the editorials" - no, that's exactly why opinion pieces and editorials are marked as such and carry a byline. In this case, the publisher clearly marks these as opinions by the authors, not the official stance of the paper. See Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion. Anyways, this is going in circles. Solomon is not a reliable source because he (reliably ;-) gets things wrong. As an unreliable source, we should not use him for statements of fact. Attributing the opinion gets around that problem, but creates the new problem of weight - why do we care about his opinion? As for Solanki's page: The link [160] works for me. When did you try it? There was a failure of DENIC two days ago which rendered nearly all of .de unreachable - if you have a sufficiently bad name server, he might still cache the wrong NXDOMAIN generated then. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 08:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I guess we're going to have to disagree. We can ask for an independent opinion at either the RS or BLP noticeboard if you like. I have no problem with that. Because Solomon is obviously trying to summarize and synthesize the opinions of the various people he profiles in his book, I was going to be very careful about using anything but the curriculum vitae stuff with Solomon as the sole source. Adding positive information to BLPs shouldn't be a big deal with sole sourcing which meets the WP:V policy, and the curriculum vitae information is positive. It's the controversial or negative information that requires more robust sourcing. 10:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried to attribute Solomon, but I was reverted. Cla68 ( talk) 11:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh dear, probably this should have been on the t page. Anyway, your problem was Attributing the opinion gets around that problem, but creates the new problem of weight - why do we care about his opinion? William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I guess things like that happen when there is a breakdown in communication. Like you said, I should have explained in advance on the talk page. In this case, I think Solomon's book is ok, because it's being used to add noncontroversial, positive, curriculum vitae information to the article. Cla68 ( talk) 11:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, if you look at Landsea's CV page here, you can see that Solomon is somewhat overinflating the award - Landsea was one of 4 authors of a paper that was given the award. As usual, he inflates positive information about scientists he can misrepresent to support his POV. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 13:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey, I was curious to know what your edit summary here [161] meant in English. I stuck it into Google Translate and came up with "T Stiff Noodles"! ScottyBerg ( talk) 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

It didn't mean anything. As I was typing the summary I accidentally hit a button on the Japanese laptop I was using and it switched over to Japanese script. I didn't notice until I had hit enter. My next summary, however, means "mistaken." I then rebooted the computer so it would switch back to the Roman alphabet. Cla68 ( talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I thought you were being sophisticated! P.S., as a CC veteran I'd love to get your thoughts on my essay. ScottyBerg ( talk) 22:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Do Steve McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. fall under wp:sps and their blogs considered as reliable sources for their views if attributed? The same question for Andrew Orlowski writing in The Register? mark nutley ( talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

I probably won't be very active between now and June 7. I may be able to check my talk page sporadically. Cla68 ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You seem to be badly confused [162]. Perhaps a break would indeed be a good idea William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Did NW undo the sanction? Cla68 ( talk) 12:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

In this diff I only meant to encourage Hipocrite to focus better on the issue at hand rather than wider questions, as several of the diffs he presented were yours rather than Lar's. I apologize for giving the wrong impression, as I consider you one of Wikipedia's better editors. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 13:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I believe you and thus, owe you an apology for misinterpreting your words. Cla68 ( talk) 15:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Not to worry - I edit Opposition to water fluoridation and understand toxic editing environments. - 2/0 ( cont.) 16:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Would you care to comment on [163]? Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Or [164]. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Is there something wrong with these edits? ATren ( talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68 has persistently objected to WMC deleting comments from his talk page. Hipocrite is noting that Marknutley engages in precisely the same practice, so that Cla68 may also want to bring this up with Marknutley. (Hipocrite can of course correct my interpretation as necessary.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

What he said, except I don't need Cla68 to bring it up with MN or you. However, when Cla68 comments next about how deleting things from your talk page is problematic, I'll have this ready-made unremoved list of times when people who agree with Cla68 remove things from their talk page. Note that I don't remove things from my talk page. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, so shall we all go together to the enforcement page? You report these two diffs, I'll collect a few hundred from WMC, and we'll let them decide. ATren ( talk) 21:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't feel removing messages from your talk page is problematic, so I'll have to decline. Hipocrite ( talk) 21:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hipocrite and Short Brigade, you seem to be missing my point. The point is that WMC has no higher moral ground when it comes to a dispute between him and Lar. One example of this is that Lar is open and willing to discuss disagreements or differing points of view with other editors on his talk page. WMC usually summarily deletes comments he apparently finds disagreeable. Cla68 ( talk) 22:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Not only do I not remove messages from my talk page, I also don't change their headings, and I don't revert people who try to change their own messages as long as they have not been responded to. Does that give me the moral high ground? Hipocrite ( talk) 23:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

If you see how long my talk page is right now, you can see that me and you both do the same. In fact, most editors allow others to leave messages on their talk pages without quickly reverting the ones they don't like. Cla68 ( talk) 04:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I do the same. If someone has said what they have said, then so be it. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

As do I, to the point that people sometimes complain about the length of my talk page. But if others prefer to keep their page clean there's nothing wrong with that -- even if it means they delete my comments. If I want my words immortalized I'll publish a book. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I guess that's one way to look at it. Cla68 ( talk) 14:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks again for your thoughts at User talk:ScottyBerg/Climate Change. I've responded with some thoughts of my own, and I hope that discussion can be opened up to others of all points of view, if people aren't entirely burned out. I think that this climate change dispute is a kind of laboratory for internet dispute-resolution processes, and it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I see that you're on break, but if you look in at some point I'd be curious to hear if you have any further thoughts. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I appreciate that. It's a difficult editing environment, to put it mildly. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68, I know that you've been on a semi-wikibreak but, you've posted to Wikipedia almost everyday since then. Your request for an amendement to an old ArbCom case has had outstanding questions for you to answer for about four days now. I assume that the case has not been closed because the committee is interested in your answers to these questions. Please attend to this as soon as you can. Bill Huffman ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The committee members haven't, as far as I'm aware, commented on the diploma mill editing by your two accounts, so it doesn't seem to me that they're awaiting any further discussion from either of us. I'll answer your questions here, however, as I understand them. I have not communicated with Derek Smart in any form or capacity, ever. I surmised the name of the university that was involved in the dispute between you and Smart because one of the emails on your site gave the university's initials. When I searched in Wikipedia under those initials, the university/diploma mill that both your accounts had edited came up. Cla68 ( talk) 05:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Derek Smart has never claimed a degree from WNU, as far as I know. Here's a google search of "WNU" on http://follies.werewolves.org. [165] The initials do not exist on the Flame War Follies website. It appears that you are not being honest, Cla68. Please give a full accounting of why you are saying such things. Bill Huffman ( talk) 06:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry "Bill", but I'm not going to get into this with you. The Committee doesn't appear to be willing to tackle the diploma mill issue so I'm letting it drop. In conclusion, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as part of your personal feud with someone. You're fortunate (arguably) that you were't banned for using an unauthorized sock account and for being evasive when asked to come clean about it. So, stay away from the Derek Smart article and don't do anything further on Wikipedia which appears to be aimed at carrying on your personal battle with the guy. Cla68 ( talk) 15:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

He does appear to have a point - You said "one of the emails on your site gave the university's initials." Are you sure that's true? Hipocrite ( talk) 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Answered on my talk page. Hipocrite ( talk) 11:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree with Hipocrite. Which is a fantastic sentence, it should be said. That aside, what you believe appears to relate to a personal feud, seems to me to be uninvolved. I also think it isn't ideal for you to order Mr. Huffman to do something that the Committee hasn't (at this time) mandated, only requested, and for you to do so based on reasons that seem to be only assumption (that Bill Huffman is participating in Wikipedia only to advance a feud). I invite that if you assumed better of him, you may see things in a different light! 72.192.46.9 ( talk) 18:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't know whose sock you are, but you are unwelcome here, 72. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I am no ones sock, Hipocrite. I have no account on Wikipedia, but I invite that this does not make me unwelcome. 72.192.46.9 ( talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm sure Hipocrite did not intend to be rude. Cla68 ( talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually I think the rudeness here was also mine, if there was any rudeness here at all. When I wrote that, it seemed like a simple statement, to be followed (as it was!) by an assurance on his talk page. Rereading it now, it reads to be snippy rather than simply being direct, which I honestly did not intend! 72.192.46.9 ( talk) 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I am working on removing the redlinks from Robert Byrce and have managed two of his books so far, but i am stuck with this one as all the refs are now so old they are all in places like infotrac. Could you look through it and post the results here Please. The current book i am doing is Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate. Thanks mark nutley ( talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure, I'll try to get this done by tomorrow. Cla68 ( talk) 01:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks mate good of you, no need to rush though gotta try and save the gore effect first lol mark nutley ( talk) 08:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I just wish to point out that it would be good to correct the spelling of Stephen to Stephan. All the best Polargeo ( talk) 12:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Corrected. Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 12:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

I should be back around 3 July. I probably won't be able to check Wikipedia, or email, much during that time. Cla68 ( talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Update. The rental office at the place I'm staying currently does have a computer with Internet access in the lobby, which I check once a day or so when I'm not at the beach. So, if you need to ask me anything I can respond here or to email on a limited basis. Othewise, I'm busy trying to find out why the beach isn't quite as fun as it was when I was eight years old. Cla68 ( talk) 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, it's amazing how much we love sand as 7 year olds and how much we hate it as 40-somethings. :-) ATren ( talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Reflecting on lost youth and innocence is actually kind of depressing. My kids seem to be having a good time, which means I must be in the same situation as my father was when I was whooping it up on the beach all those years ago. Cla68 ( talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC) reply

May I suggest Fern Hill by Dylan Thomas for a poetic rendition of the thought.

And on a more mundane level, should you wish to take a break from both your wikibreak and further elegies of innocence and youth, you may find this FAC up your alley, should you wish to review it. Regards, Kablammo ( talk) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

A potential cure for your depression: buy an iPad 3G, put it in a sturdy ziplock bag, and bring it down to the beach with you. ;-) ATren ( talk) 04:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you both for the helpful suggestions. I was snorkeling yesterday and a large one of these suddenly swam right by me and turned and looked me in the eye before motoring on. That was worth the entire trip right there. Cla68 ( talk) 03:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68, I did try following your links in the section on WMCab (which title you might refactor). Do you think that when you have several months editing and over a hundred edits, and arrive on a featured page calling the article "slanted and biased" it is really unreasonable for someone to accuse you of "errors". If not, why not choose a stronger first example of incivility because many people reading the page like me will not go beyond the first one listed if it does not seem to grab attention? -- BozMo talk 11:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the advice. My evidence section will be revised before it goes final. I'm using the actual section as my scratch paper instead of a page in my userspace or an off-wiki Word document. I'm throwing a lot of diffs up there and some of them will probably come off around the time of the deadline. Cla68 ( talk) 11:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply

When the arbcom thing is done could you look at the ref`s used here [166] and ok them please, i`d like to get the article to mainspace before i get topic banned after the arbcom case is done :) mark nutley ( talk) 22:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure thing. Cla68 ( talk) 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I have removed a few copyright-violating links from your evidence section, as they may constitute contributory infringement. I have left a placeholder to indicate that I have done so, but you should of course feel free to replace this with a summary of the point made by the infringing links. There is simply no reason why any page here ever should link to illegal content. This is not the first conversation we have had about copyright and its importance to this project - please be more careful. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

According to how I read that policy, it's ok to link to the website containing the texts of those emails, just not to the individual emails themselves. Cla68 ( talk) 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I think any borderline linking to illegal content should be handled conservatively on a case-by-case basis. As it appears that the emails plus an index comprise the entirety of that site, I would not link there myself, but I will leave it to others to decide if you would like to do so. The current solution also works for me, thank you. - 2/0 ( cont.) 23:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit#.22some_sceptics_allege.22_vs._.22it_has_been_alleged.22. Just browsing diffs and thought this would be a good addition to your evidence section on wikilawyering (particularly on the part of ChrisO), which only gives one example as yet. Happy editing.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 10:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you, but unless the Committee extends the deadline, it's too late. Cla68 ( talk) 10:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

This first link in the BLP evidence of the Climate change case is broken: [167]. If possible fix it and on my talk page point me to where I can see the fix. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Was this who made this link somewhere? I can't find it if so. Cla68 ( talk) 01:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 12:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16 reply

I'd heard of that blog, and would love to see an article on it. But there is nothing on Google News except for the article already cited. Are you aware of any others? I'll be out of pocket for much of the next few weeks, but I'll see what I can find. ScottyBerg ( talk) 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

If you can find a transcript of the Senate hearing where she testified, it should give some background, including mention of her blog. I couldn't find it in my own searching around. Otherwise, like most blogs it's hard to find any secondary sources on it. Is there a Big Book of Blogs out there somewhere? Cla68 ( talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The web criteria are selective. I imagine they have to be, for otherwise we'd have many thousands of articles, as there are millions of blogs and tens or hundreds of millions of websites. It may be premature to have an article on this one, much as we may like it. ScottyBerg ( talk) 23:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm an inclusionist on most topics except BLPs. I don't see any reason why we can't have thousands of articles on blogs if each meets the notability standard, which I think this blog does. Cla68 ( talk) 00:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

In response to your query on Rlverse's talk page, the probation applies to all climate change articles (broadly construed).

From the probation page:

Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:

• Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
  • Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard( template), or the Arbitration Committee.
• Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.
• All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log.''

See also Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community.

I'm leaving this comment on your talk page because Rlverse seemed a little irritated that the discussion was taking place on his talk page. He opened an exemption for adding additional evidence on the issue of the recent edit war on Robert Watson (scientist). I have not been invovled in any of this arbitration or the subject area and haven't decided whether to present evidence on this issue. I'm sure others will cover it adequately. Minor4th • talk 22:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

So how are you getting along with mark nutley?

If your mentorship is working well, would you mind having a look at this talk page? It is not strictly within your remit, since it is not climate change, and nutley is not adding sources but removing them. But if you have practice in dealing with him when he asserts that the Greeks didn't have democracys [sic], or argues about the Roman Republic without the slightest notion of its difference from the Roman Empire, it would be most welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, I warned one of the editors involved for an uncivil attitude. As far as the WP:SYN debate, that will take me some time to sort out as I know very little on the topic. Cla68 ( talk) 01:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Your action seems to me profoundly imappropriate. Please reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

No. I've seen other editors in other topics use that "Why are you even here since you obviously don't know what you are talking about" approach to dealing with editors who disagree with existing content in an article. That attitude is profoundly wrong for a wiki. If you disagree with someone's suggestion, talk it out without insulting them. Most editors are able to do this. Cla68 ( talk) 01:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

It depends on the ignorance - and the degree to which the editor acts on subjects in which he knows nothing. Claiming (twice) that the Roman Empire existed two to five centuries before its foundation and then arguing on that basis (like arguing about Rome's wars with Carthage while not knowing what the Punic Wars were; it's the combination that will not do) was a waste of Cynwolfe's time and Wikipedia's resources. This is not a political point of view; it's not even a scientific dispute; it's the equivalent of arguing about mathematical articles without understanding multiplication. She dealt with it with exemplary patience; she didn't need a brickbat from you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Baloney. There is absolutely no call to talk down to someone that way on an article talk page. She could have said, "I don't agree with you, and I think the sources back me up because..." or something along those lines, but to respond with, "if you lack the most fundamental knowledge of the subject matter" and "this is as banal an assertion" and "If you have no interest in history, why are you trying to edit an article on the subject?" is clear bullying and it is unacceptable. I will report her to the proper forum if she does it again. Cla68 ( talk) 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You're taking these remarks in isolation (especially the "banal" one, which was in reference to an assertion I made myself! if you're going to make such extreme accusations, please read more closely). I came into that discussion thinking that neither civil wars nor the Punic Wars really belonged there, and in the course of trying to read up on the topic, found that indeed they might. Surely this demonstrates that I acted in good faith and with an open mind and based my views on scholarship, not preconceptions or gamesmanship. I was trying to present evidence to someone who rejected a list of sources before he even had time to look at them (check the time code), who was blithe about the difference between Greeks and Romans, and who kept demanding "give me a straight answer" when I was doing my best to do so (you don't call that bullying?) and accused me of "obfuscating" in regard to the question of whether the Punic Wars should be included in a list of wars between democracies. Why? Because I was trying to examine whether the constitution of either the Roman Republic (distinguished from the Roman Empire by its form of government) or the Carthaginian Republic could be verified as having a democratic element. What's a more straightforward way to address the question? And then, after lengthy discussion and objecting strenuously and persistently to the inclusion of the Punic Wars in the article, he admitted that he hadn't really known what wars we were talking about. Look, I know several people who would like to contribute to Wikipedia, both professional and serious amateur scholars, because they recognize what a widely accessed and potentially valuable resource it is, but they don't want to waste time on that kind of pointlessness, so they stay away. Now, I would never fault anyone for not knowing about a series of wars that took place more than 2000 years ago. And having taught for several years, I know that people who have a genuine interest in a topic but a limited body of knowledge can participate in and contribute to discussion in a meaningful, provocative way. But arguing on the basis of nothing more than "because I don't know anything about this, it must be OR and synthesis," and then rejecting legitimate sources that verify claims — that's obstructionism for its own sake, and Wikipedia is not helped by pretending otherwise. Cynwolfe ( talk) 06:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I want to use these reviews for the HSI article The Geological Society Natuurwetenschap & Techniek Quadrant Magazine I asked over at stephans page but he has not replied to my last post mark nutley ( talk) 10:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

NWT and Quadrant are definitely RS. The Geological Society of London is ok as source for its own opinion. I'll go ahead and add something to the article using those sources. Cla68 ( talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually, I'm not sure on NWT. I thought it was the Swedish newspaper, but it turns out to be a Dutch site. I'm researching it. Cla68 ( talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

It`s a science magazine mark nutley ( talk) 23:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I found its entry on the Dutch Wikipedia, so I'm adding it right now. Cla68 ( talk) 23:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Cool, you could have left one for me :) Geological society is a good one, nice to have some reviews from the egghead crowd :) mark nutley ( talk) 23:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry for hogging it. If you can translate Dutch (Google translate isn't up to par, in my opinion), please add a couple of quotes. Cla68 ( talk) 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Got another review from Hawaii Reporter what do you think?

Looks ok to me. Since the article is protected, I suggest starting a new section on the talk page with a suggested paragraph of two sentences paraphrasing the review. The source has a Wikipedia article. Cla68 ( talk) 08:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Re [168]: if you want to talk to ChrisO, use his talk page. If you want to talk to me, use mine William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68, I've started the RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please continue to participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm really angry that anybody would pull this kind of crap on Wikipedia, and astonished that it's somebody who seems to want to be taken seriously. Please retract that attack at once. You know better. -- TS 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I responded. Tony, I think you're taking this stuff a little too seriously. Remember, Wikipedia doesn't care who is right or wrong. We just report on the topic. Cla68 ( talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Tony, Cla68 is just trying to stir things up for the benefit of arbcom while the decision is being negotiated. So, the less reaction to this kind of thing the better. Remember there is no deadline for cleaning up the articles when stuff like this happens. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

AGF, SBHB. I'm not trying to bait anyone, I'm just giving my opinion on the topic which is ok for that forum because it was in user space. If someone becomes angry at someone for having a different opinion, IMO it means that that editor's personal feelings on the topic are a little too strong. Cla68 ( talk) 07:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Here's a little more, at least what is my perspective. ArbCom is focusing on behavior rather than article content. Here is the case. [169] Using such a silly book for scientific information would, in my opinion, be similar to using the book Chariots of the Gods? as a scientific reference work. However, this issue would probably be considered a content issue not a behavior issue. I assume that Cla68 knows that the book is held in very low esteem by most experts. I'll guess that he is hoping for a Wikipedia editor reaction that he can then use as an example of the poor behavior on the part of the Wikipedia editors that try to support the scientific consensus view within climate change related articles. Regards, Bill Huffman ( talk) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Does it permit edits like [170] or [171], or is the so-called topic ban only in effect for edits you don't approve of? Hipocrite ( talk) 11:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I gave up on the voluntary ban after ArbCom announced that their impending decision was not as imminent as they had originally indicated. Cla68 ( talk) 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

So am I released from it as well, or did you only tell this to your brothers in arms? Hipocrite ( talk) 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I didn't announce it to anyone, I just started editing again. Hipocrite, you seem to be treating this topic as a battleground. If you can't avoid doing so, then I think you should continue with the voluntary topic ban. Are there any other subjects that you find interesting? Cla68 ( talk) 22:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't have enough time on my hands right now to do anything to defend myself against ArbCom right now - I don't even edit any CC articles. Thanks, though. Have you considered asking MarkNutley, ATren or AQFK to even start with the topic ban? Hipocrite ( talk) 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla did ask us to stop, at last month's sooper sekret septic meeting. I remember it well because he asked during our walk from the Exxon rally to the site of the ritual coal burning. ATren ( talk) 23:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Remember, I had asked both you and Mark on the talk page of one of the articles to follow it. It's not that hard to edit other topics. While we were having this conversation, I used today's issue of the Japan Times to add this [172] [173] information to a completely unrelated topic. I enjoyed doing it. If the CC topic area feels like a constant battle to you, then I don't understand how you could be having any fun participating in it. Cla68 ( talk) 22:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Try taking up golf! ;-) dave souza, talk 23:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Mr. Kincaid's passion for the minutae of golf reminds me of the guy I heard about who poured himself a tall glass of wine from a newly opened bottle, then took a sip each hour for 12 hours while recording detailed notes on how the wine tasted over that time. Sounds like something I could do with a straight face. Cla68 ( talk) 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:AN/I#Malicious sabotage of RSN comments by Cla68. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a blatant and malicious lie. I demand that you retract it at once or face the consequences. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

It's just Cla68 stirring the pot and trying to provoke an emotional reaction for the benefit of Arbcom. See also two threads up. The less attention paid to such stuff the better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Chris, I think your feelings on the topic are a little too strong, because it is effecting your perspective and the way you are reacting to content disputes which otherwise really shouldn't be a big deal. Cla68 ( talk) 02:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Your refusal to retract or refactor your malicious claim is noted. Explain yourself or face the consequences. -- ChrisO ( talk) 03:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Chris, you can't talk to people like that. I don't care what Cla68 did or did not do. Your tone is very unproductive. Take a break, cool off, and come back later. Jehochman ^Talk 03:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Some 2 months ago (it seems like ages ago) you suggested that the article title be changed to "Gore Effect". I realize there have been a lot more pressing issues in the interim but I hope, at some time, you will be able to revisit that suggestion as I believe it to be an edit warranted by both colloquial use and by Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm under a voluntary CC topic ban right now. Cla68 ( talk) 01:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

No rush...whenever you can get around to it, I'm confident it will be supported. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 01:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know about this sign-up list, a couple of clarifications would be helpful. Firstly, with this comment you continued a discussion over a hot topic in the CC area, are user talk pages exempt from the voluntary restriction? I see Tony's answered and presumably that's an end to it, but it should be explicit in the clarifications. There's also this merger proposal which you've not commented on, but some others have, so that could be raised at the same time. Please let me know if these are areas that have already been cleared with someone, dave souza, talk 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I thought user talk pages were ok, but if they're not, then that post to Tony Sideaway's talk pages will be the last one I make regarding CC articles on someone's talk page during this restriction. I won't be commenting on that merger proposal because of the voluntary topic ban. Cla68 ( talk) 01:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the clarification, Cla68, as you'll have seen from the list discussion there's some flexibility in how each of us interprets this. I personally will avoid arguing any CC issues, and look forward to a peaceful few days! . . dave souza, talk 06:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, you cast a vote of oppose on a proposed content guideline; I and a few other editors have made significant changes to the proposed guideline to try and resolve the issues of the opposers. I initially opposed the guideline but now support it due to the changes made recently. Would you mind reviewing the changes and commenting on this section. Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science-related_articles)#Towards_consensus_acceptance_of_the_guideline.2C_lets_discuss Thank you very much.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 21:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm kind of busy this weekend, but I'll relook it first chance I get. Cla68 ( talk) 01:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is:

• You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.

What this invitation is not:

• This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
• This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue ( talk) 11:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I'm being a nag, but this is an issue that must be addressed. Thanks. IronDuke 03:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68, it appears to me that you're establishing a pattern of disruptive interaction with others here on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how you pick your victims or why. What is more important is that this disruptive pattern is becoming visible to others, e.g., User:Bill Huffman, User:Cynwolfe, and now User:IronDuke. Bill Huffman ( talk) 17:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply

It seems that a recent interaction on Dave Souza's talk page could also be interpretted as being a disruptive interaction. [174] To try to be complete, here's the Cynwolfe incident. [175] Here's the IronDuke incident that I'm referring to. [176] The incident where you carried out a full multiple week campaign against me me was, of course, much more extensive. I describe it here. [177] I don't know if there were similar incidents before your bullying of me began. You have an excellent record of improving Wikipedia article space, especially in the military history area. That is much appreciated. This apparent desire to sometimes bully other editors is disruptive and should be stopped. Thank you, Bill Huffman ( talk) 17:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I have no idea whether Cla68 is bullying you in this instance, but I would just like to point out a chink in the chain. In the Ironduke case you refer to, Cla68 just says that personal attacks are not proper, and that how or why Cla68 came to be interested in a topic is also irrelevant. Cla68 is basically just rephrasing Wikipedia policy, as far as I understand it (eg "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.") I'd also suggest that the Ironduke case is dubious because it would seem Ironduke himself has a 'visible pattern' of resorting to personal attacks in lieu of actual conversation. I found this comment of Cla68's, "I've noticed that when it comes to that topic area, you [Ironduke] often seem to let your emotions get the better of you," very familiar.

But again I don't mean to say that your criticism of Cla68 is unfounded; just saying that this particular example may not be as robust as you think it is. 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 00:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

IP, "Bill Huffman" is apparently upset because I helped end his use of Wikipedia to attack Derek Smart, with whom he apparently has had a long-term vendetta against. Cla68 ( talk) 04:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Well I wouldn't know. But it may be of value to you to know your opinion regarding Ironduke is not an idiosyncracy of yours; he does appear to have a habit of failing to respond to an argument with anything except personal attacks. This is precisely what I (without knowledge of your issues with him) have pointed out to him quite a few times on the Helen Thomas discussion page. 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 04:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, I'm going to put that and other articles that IronDuke regularly edits on my watchlist. If he continues with the same type of behavior I will report him to the appropriate authorities. Please let me know if he continues with the behavior. Cla68 ( talk) 04:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

As I was stalking your talk page I became interested in this exchange and had a look at your discourse with IronDuke. I find the whole thing extremely bizarre that the issue of his incivility was turned on its head, and instead he and a couple of other editors turned this into a semi- accusatory inquisition into how you happened to come across IronDuke's incivility. Bill Huffman's criticism seems to be cloaked in the same bizarre suspiciousness in total disregard of the actual issue for which you appropriately warned ID (in my opinion). I read Huffman's diffs and I fail to see a pattern of disruptive interaction on your part at all. For whatever it's worth ..... Minor 4th 05:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Don't worry about Bill Huffman, he's just an SPA who has had his SP turned off and doesn't know what to do about it other than to attack the main person who helped turn it off. The IronDuke situation, however, is much more serious. It's directly related to this arbcom case, in which IronDuke was fortunate, IMO, to escape without a one year topic ban, as you can see by the diff I had objections to. If you'll check the workshop page for that case, you'll see that IronDuke openly admits to having no intention of following WP:NPOV. For an editor who has been around as long as he has, I don't understand why he is allowed to get away with behaving the way he does. If he does it again, I will be reporting thim to the ArbCom enforcement board. Cla68 ( talk) 06:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68, your response is disappointing but not surprising. Your accusations that I'm a wp:SPA bent on attacking anyone is false. You say things like this but never try to prove such accusations. It is just another example of how you like to bully others and don't seem to care about the truth when you target a victim. My editing that has anything to do with Mr. Smart is an extremely small percentage of my total Wikipedia edits especially considering the totality of my Wikipedia edits which would include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TallMagic. Since your harassment bullying campaign began against me, you keep repeating such false things about me. You have never presented any problematic edits despite your repeated false accusations at multiple noticeboards. You have never bothered supporting your false accusations. You should cease your bullying activities. You should stop telling false stories about people. For example your totally false accusation about what I said about WNU in an attempt to get my editing banned. See [178] for strong supporting evidence for what I allege in this paragraph above. You harassed me, you apparently also tried to bully Dave Souza, CynWolfe and perhaps IronDuke. Such behavior is disruptive and should stop. Bill Huffman ( talk) 07:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

What i see here bill is your apparent following of Cla, if cla posts on a talkpage to remind an editor to remain civil that is not disruptive. But i see you post across multipile talkpages and forums to complain about the fact that Cla and you had a disagreement which you appear to be unable to get over, perhaps you should mark nutley ( talk) 08:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla ignores Huffman, as should everyone. ATren ( talk) 15:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68 has also apparently said false things about IronDuke in his last response. He seems to allege that IronDuke was lucky to escape sanctions in an arbcom case that he points at, yet IronDuke isn't even mentioned in that case, at least not that I can find. I know that Cla68 has told blatant total lies regarding me. He apparently does the same thing against others. He has told those lies in an apparent attempt to bully others. This is disruptive behavior and he should stop doing it. Bill Huffman ( talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh dear. I suggest that this discussion is an unwise use of time by everyone, and it would be well for all to go their merry ways without further interaction. In other words, break it up, nothing to see here, please disperse. If this does come to the attention of ahem, authorities, I suspect that everyone will be less happy than they think they deserve to be.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68, Ironduke's behaviour is of course continuing, and I suppose it will never stop. Most recently, I have followed Wikipedia's guidelines for dispute resolution and have put forward an RfC. His contribution was to demean me and told everyone else to ignore my RfC. He also appears to be getting his friends to come along and support him, although that is obviously a hard claim to prove. But what I'm getting from looking at his page is that he is anti-arab or pro-Israeli (one or the other), and that people of that ilk kind of know each other and attempt to get each other's support when an argument isn't going their way. He went to Brewcrewer's page and complained about me being 'a series of numbers' (even though Wikipedia policy says there's nothing wrong with being an IP address), after Brewcrewer had gone to the Helen Thomas page and made a change and just called me a troll -- no other explanation given for the change, and no reason given for such an allegation. Epefleeche has even gone so far as to call me a 'vandal,' also without explanation (except that, in his opinion, 'Ironduke is right'). I know I shouldn't make claims about Ironduke's motivations, but after the treatment I've had from him and his friends, it would seem that at the very least they think making (entirely false) claims about someone's motivations is fine; and, as Ironduke likes to tell me, he is a wikipedia expert. 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 00:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please give me some diffs and links to get me started. In case you don't know what I mean, a diff is the url to the edit made by an editor that you get from the page history when you compare two different edits. Cla68 ( talk) 02:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, for some reason, when I hit 'undo' in the history, the diffs are all replaced by, "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually." But if you hit this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helen_Thomas, you'll see down the bottom my RfC. Ironduke's response is "If anyone is seriously entertaining the idea that HT's comments, which seem to have ended her career, shoud be somehow censored or ameliorated, I advise them to start a thread apart from this disruptive IP's. We shouldn't be encouraging this sort of thing." Not only is he calling me a disruptive IP, but he's using that to undermine my RfC. (The irony, here, being that it's me following Wikipedia policy for the resolution of disputes, and it is him who is attempting to disrupt that.) You could also look to the massive section 'Conjecture' at the top of the talk page, if you were so inclined. He started off alright, there was a bit of gentle ribbing back and forth, but then when he was on the ropes his responses lost all content except for things like "You don't understand what's going on!" "I'm not interested in having my work challenged by you," "I suppose I should have followed my first instinct, which was that having a discussion with you would be a waste of time," "At last we begin to agree .... you know virtually nothing about I-P affairs or Helen Thomas" and so on. It's a little hard to follow, because there are about three different strands of convo in that section, but at each point when he leaves a convo it is with a snide remark about me rather than a rebuttal of what I've said. Also, in the history of the article, if you look at his reversion on 3rd August, 1:47, his reason for the reversion is "I don't owe you an explanation other than what's already on talk. Please let editors who are doing actual work do their work. Thanks." (He does start this off with a compliment, but his reason for the change is a personal thing about me). After that he essentially stopped giving explanations, except for every now and again saying "See talk" (he has not added anything new to talk since his personal attacks). Sorry that I can't get the actual diff urls, but I hope this gives you a place to start if you decide to proceed. And, btw, thanks. 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 04:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, right, I see how to get those urls now, sorry; I gotta go now, but I'll get them for you tomorrow, if you still want. Just let me know. Thanks, 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 05:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, please, diffs/urls would be helpful. Cla68 ( talk) 14:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Alright, sorry about the wait, here's the diffs (in the same order as above): http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AHelen_Thomas&action=historysubmit&diff=378989239&oldid=378984172; http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=376875177; http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=377020482; http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=376874451; and the link for the reversion where his edit summary includes "I don't owe you an explanation other than what's already on talk. Please let editors who are doing actual work do their work" is http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Helen_Thomas&diff=cur&oldid=376860819. Are these what you were looking for? Thanks, 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 02:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll get to this soon. Cla68 ( talk) 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks mate, that's good of you. I see his discussion page has been deleted, so maybe there has been some result. Cheers, 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 06:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. I was recently given a copy of this book by a friend and I am currently reading through it. I find the topic reasonably interesting so I thought I would just check out the article on the book. It looks a little thin to me and so I might be interested in trying to help improve it a bit. I am contacting you because I see on the talk page that you have also been recently trying to improve the article. You mentioned something called Good Article status and indicated that you didn't think the article was ready for that.

Can you tell me a little more about the good article stuff? Is this documented somewhere? What's involved in getting an article to that point? Etc.

I have also been working a little on some of the Country Music articles. Mostly Hank Williams, Jr. which also seems to need some help. I would like to see about getting both the Hank Williams Jr. and the The Deniers articles up to a level that they are considered good.

Any pointers or advice you could provide would be greatly appreciated. -- Georgia peach lover ( talk) 13:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla, I wanted to thank you for your support at that talk page re Dave S. I didn't take his remarks seriously, even tho they were a bit sharp -- especially since I started it ;-]. Then we got into a WikiLove-fest and I didn't have the heart to pursue it. Perhaps for the best; collegiality is good. But I appreciate the thought: sharp words are the rule in the CC area, sigh, and I get carried away sometimes myself. Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Annals of Climate Science: From internal discussions of French GCM model LMD/ISPL: “Olivier has mentionned the problem of snow accumulation reaching several km must be resolved.” tinyurl.com/37s7j3 (which triggered a spam block, sigh)

I'm writing an essay which is indirectly related to what you're talking about. I'll let you and others know when I complete my first draft and welcome your input. Cla68 ( talk) 23:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I have drafted an essay on activism in Wikipedia here. Before I post it, I hope anyone interested will provide some feedback or constructive criticism on it. The essay especially needs some amusing images to break up its wall of text. Cla68 ( talk) 00:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

It's not clear if the essay refers to WP:NPOV as policy, or to your personal view of what NPOV means. Can you clarify? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

You might consider File:Man sitting on a dead horse (1876 - 1884).jpg for Flogging a dead horse -- which should be referenced, along with Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I haven't had a chance to read your draft yet. Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Interesting draft, just read it. One comment so far: I don't entirely agree with the sentences (my bolding), "The difference between neutral, good faith editors and those who are not is fairly obvious. Editors operating in good faith will usually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors." I would say that this is not entirely the case. In science, where I edit, there are more absolute standards that are held without compromise. For example, there are some things published that say that the Earth is expanding. Granted, the most recent mainstream-published one is from 1960 (well, there was one more recent thing in a non-geophysics journal). All of our modern knowledge shows that the Earth is actually very very very slowly contracting, but is basically static in size. There are a lot of semi-professional-looking sources that contest the mainstream science, and no answer for mainstream science because the idea that the Earth is expanding has been long abandoned as incorrect (and didn't have many supporters in the first place). To an outsider, this can often look like a mess, as both sides do have journal articles, and mainstream science has no real refutations in peer-reviewed journals. But to an insider, the facts are very obvious. There is no room to budge or compromise here, and I was involved in a protracted nasty argument for my stance. My point is that in topic areas where fact is more clear-cut, just who is the fringe POV pusher is hard for an outsider to see, and compromise would compromise the factual integrity of the article. Awickert ( talk) 04:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

You're proceeding from the mistaken assumption that accuracy of our content is relevant. We just care about reporting what the sources say, right Cla68? If the sources are outdated or patently insane, that's not our problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The policy does say, "verifiability, not truth." I wasn't the one who wrote it, but I agree with it because of the way that WP is currently structured. Some social media encyclopedias, like Citizendium, do allow expert contributors to make content decisions. WP, as it currently exists, does not. Cla68 ( talk) 22:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually, we should shoot for both accuracy and verifiability, and use editorial discretion to filter out the trash. The problem being, one editor's trash can be another's treasure... ;-) Is there actually a policy for Ed. Discr?? That's one that KDP likes to use, and mostly I agree, though not always with the specific discretion being applied. See above. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 05:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not as cynical as Boris, but that is an important problem: whose discretion to use? Awickert ( talk) 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Read it now. A little shrill, but basically on-target. It will be interesting to see if any of SBHB's more-activist associates show up....

I'll look for more cute photos tomorrow. Bedtime here. Best wishes for the essay, Pete Tillman ( talk) 05:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Not a bad first start, Cla68, but I'm seeing lots of confirmation bias. You may wish to base your observations on solid data. For example, in my own experience, I found that many people weren't interested in GA or FA because they wanted to preserve original research in the article, not because they were activists. For me, this was specifically true on the hippie article, where after several years, the OR is still in the article due to at least three stubborn editors, and the article is unable to pass GA as a result. Viriditas ( talk) 09:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note also that the FA (and by extension GA) process has been roundly criticized by external evaluators; see e.g., here. In reality GA/FA status merely indicates that the article is properly formatted, adheres to Wikipedia's standards in terms of style and referencing, and the standard of English is reasonably good. Some people would rather spend their time on other things, like substantive content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah, that study was no good..didn't include any of mine :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not a fan of the GA process because it's just one person's opinion, but the FA process is rigorous nowadays, and it's a myth that it's all about formatting. There is too much focus on formatting, in my view, but it's also about quality of content, neutrality, text-source integrity, quality of sources. And there's a regular team of reviewers so it's no longer a case of sufficient numbers who like the article or editor turning up to vote. I think it would be very difficult to get a poorly written, biased article through the current FA process. And I do agree with Cla that activist editors tend not to want fresh eyes looking too closely. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 15:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The evidence is otherwise. Take an uncontroversial article like wind, for example. I was stunned to learn it was an FA because it was chock-full of basic factual errors from the second sentence onward. It's been improved since then but how did it ever get through FA in that condition? Some FAs are good, but if the reader must already have a thorough understanding of the topic to determine whether FA content is reliable or not, how useful is FA as an indicator of content quality? People often claim that the problematic FAs are old ones and that standards are higher now, but wind passed FA only in June of last year. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Huh. Thanks for that, So no knowledgeable person peer-reviewed it? (Goes to wind). Looks like you did a batch of editing last November -- hopefully fixing the worst bloopers. Ah weel -- hazards of volunteer work. At least, being uncontroversial, your fixes should stay up ;-{ -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I can't comment on Wind, because I know nothing about it. I know there have been articles that were promoted that perhaps ought not to have been, and I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it's improving year by year as the reviewers become more experienced. Every FA year (like WP in general) is more like a decade in terms of experience. But the point, Boris, is not that all FAs are ipso facto good articles; it is that activist editors tend not to want to expose their articles to the current FA process, and the more rigorous the process becomes, the more that's likely to be true. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Agreed that activist editors likely will not want the publicity. But the essay argues the reverse: lack of interest in the GA/FA process is a sign of activism. That's a basic logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent (i.e., "since we know A implies B, then B must also imply A" where in this case A is activism and B is lack of interest or skepticism toward the GA/FA process). Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'd have to a agree with Boris here. "Absence of evidence..." dah dah dah. A weak part of your essay, imo, might be better struck. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• In its place, you might consider expanding the section on "hostility" to include baiting newbies. I know, since it happened to me a couple of times. Very disconcerting. You could also add (or reference) a bit about hostile Activists driving away editors with professional qualifications in the controversial topic. Oh, and check out Gretel, here.... <G>, Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

On my low-res monitor I thought the cat was puking. The pic works either way, actually. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I definitely agree here. Part of the reason that I've been involved as much as I have is because of how nice the editors I initially met were. (Ooh, I think I lose grammar points for that one.) Awickert ( talk) 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I appreciate all the constructive criticism and suggestions and I'm going to try to incorporate it all into the essay over the next few days. Cla68 ( talk) 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68...Your essay is way off. I really don't think you have a clue what its like to have to deal with fringe "science". You'd be surprised how many published 9/11 CT POV pushers I ran into when trying to keep their idiotic notions out of this website. Plus, some of these people have websites that run ads along with their hokie video docudramas...geez, you start googling 9/11 related stuff and you run into a gauntlet of misinformation and foolish youtube videos...it's enough to make one vomit, I assure you. I think most editors around recognize I am much more conservative than the average Wikipedian, and I truly do wish Connolley and his "cabal" were wrong about the information they cite, but sadly, I don't see any substantive evidence that refutes AGW. In a similar pattern that the 9/11 CTers would employ, using little innuendos to make mountains out of molehills, AGW deniers use the same tactics, taking tidbids of things and trying to lump them all together to try and show that AGW is bunk. I'll tell you what is bunk though..the way such things as Cap and Trade is set up...not only will it do little to alleviate AGW, it will raise energy costs for consumers while a few investors will get filthy rich...the CCX...( Chicago Climate Exchange)= Joyce Foundation= Generation Investment Management (Al Gore)= Goldman Sachs=carbon offsets=no reduction in AGW.-- MONGO 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

MONGO, I agree with you about the importance of dealing with the 9/11 truthers and similar, but the problem is that guidelines and policies intended to deal with issues like that have been extended and extended to the point where any minority view risks being dubbed "fringe" or UNDUE, and excluded. I'm seeing it all over the project now. Christian editors want to call the idea that Jesus might not have existed (note: just the doubt about it) fringe and comparable to Holocaust denial. Science editors want to see articles by intelligent design proponents excluded as sources — in the article about intelligent design itself, because not peer-reviewed and therefore fringe. (When did we decide as a project that sources had to be peer-reviewed?) The BBC is not allowed as a source on statins. The New York Times excluded as a source on climate change. A book about the hockey stick controversy not allowed as a source — in the article about the hockey stick controversy.

It has reached the point where I no longer want to be involved in this project, because it's wall-to-wall POV pushing, which always happened, but it happened because the policies were ignored. Now, the policies are being used to keep out entirely legitimate points of view, and new guidelines are being written so that each specialism is defining what it regards as a reliable source in its field, which minimizes the cross-fertilization of ideas and criticism. It's a crossroads for Wikipedia, without a word of exaggeration. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Mongo, it sounds to me like the 9/11 conspiracy activists were easily identified because they tried to use self-published websites so it seems to have been a clear case of activism. Sometimes, however, it isn't so obvious unless you weigh the evidence as a whole. I've seen in several different topic areas, including some that might surprise you (I won't mention them here, but I may start a thread on WR, because I'm not trying to engage in dispute resolution with those editors via this essay), the behaviors I detail in the essay. As SV points out, the removal of reliably sourced information, including material sourced to independently published books and articles from major newspapers, is often a hallmark of editors who are trying to control the tone and message of a topic area and may be a sign of activism. The double standard of attacking BLP subjects of idealogical adversaries while protecting other BLPs from the same, may be a sign of activism. Biting newbies and being rude to other editors who try to make good faith changes to the articles, may be a sign of activism. If all three are occurring together, then you probably have an activism problem in your topic. Cla68 ( talk) 22:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

BLP's are an area I avoid...that's just me...I have made few contributions about living people...so what's been going on with that arena is not something I am well aware of, though I have seen the evidence on the arbcom case. In dealing with 9/11 subjects, there were plenty of published sources that the "truthers" kept trying to pass off as reliable references...though none of them had been peer reviewed by the engineering community and/or specialists that had a good understanding of aviation and civil engineering. I think one of the problems with the entire AGW debate has been the overly alarmists efforts such as the docudrama An Inconvienent Truth, which I think has done a disservice to efforts to understand AGW...looking at that docudrama, the way the graphics are done, one would think that Florida is going to be submerged in 6 months or less...it is sensationalist claptrap. The other thing one has to wonder though is rationale...who stands to lose the most if we switch off greenhouse gas emissions? Who has the money to pay someone to edit AGW denial...who has the bigger pocketbook? If AGW were bunk and it was still being peddled as science, what profit would that bring? Maybe GE and GM, the largest patent holders on green technologies? You see where I am going here? I have more to add about the subject regarding the misuse in undue and other issues by tomorrow.-- MONGO 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

MONGO, the thing is that we're not supposed to add or remove things just because we don't like them or don't agree with them. Wikipedia articles should reflect what's out there. Readers should never feel a sense of jarring when they come here, a sense of "but what about this, or that? where's that point I saw argued in the New York Times? where is all the stuff about X that I keep reading about?" Our articles should reflect those published sources, then expand and explain. We can't say "oh well, it's whoever stands to lose the most who has managed to push this article into The Times, so we're just going to ignore it." SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 00:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The entrenchment may have spilled over...in combating against nonsense, there may have been some instances where notable issues may be suppressed due to a little overzealousness in ensuring inroads aren't given to innuendo and unscientific opinion. NYTimes has this report here which is from this pdf...-- MONGO 11:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This is looking more and more like a conflict between two worldviews: what is sometimes called "post-Enlightenment" (rationalist, science-oriented) on the one hand, and what could be vaguely referred to as " postmodern" on the other. Whether two such fundamentally incompatible worldviews can be reconciled within a project such as Wikipedia is an interesting question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Postmodernism is a valid form of art, but as for its role in the humanities and academia, it has largely been discredited, and rightly so as it is complete nonsense. Humanities, is in fact, being greatly influenced by the modern evolutionary synthesis, however the United States educational system greatly lags behind in this regard due to the enormous influence of Christian fundamentalists. So, if there is evidence that a postmodern philosophy or worldview is being promoted, it should be shown for what it is. Viriditas ( talk) 01:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

---

• More cute pix, as promised
• 
  For "Gotcha" editng
• 
  Sirius Admin
• There must be some use for this...
  There must be some use for this...
• 
  The Blog Deleter

Deep enough! -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 19:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I'm not clear about why there's such angst about this essay. I wrote an essay too. Big deal. It is an expression of your personal opinion. Is there some problem if it doesn't conform with Wiki policies to a T? My initial reaction upon reading it was that you took your own personal experiences in the Climate Change articles, during which you have edited in a fashion that has raised vigorous disagreement, and then carved this essay around it. But I can't find myself getting excited about your expressing your opinion. Am I missing something? ScottyBerg ( talk) 01:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• This essay is based on four and a half years of editing Wikipedia and observing, during that time, how editors acted with many different topics. In my experience, the three behaviors listed in the essay were common in just about every topic area in which there appeared to be participation by blocs of agenda-driven editors. Cla68 ( talk) 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately, that isn't good enough to avoid confirmation bias. You may want to read scientific control as an informal suggestion for improvement, and review actual instances of "participation by blocs of agenda-driven editors", such as those found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GregJackP/Archive, when Minor4th and GregJackP were accused of being the same editors. Viriditas ( talk) 02:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

To answer my own question, apparently people care about this essay because of the view that this essay undermines established policies, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Essays#Acceptance_of_essays. Am I correct? As for confirmation bias, I agree but I think that is an understatement. ScottyBerg ( talk) 02:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Looks right on from here, Cla68, although I have to agree (naturally :) with Slim re: FAC. Classic exmple documented at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles, but I also agree with those editors who say that BLP activist editors differ from science/fringe activist editors in some ways -- in the science realm, we often find editors using primary or dubious sources incorrectly, while in the BLP/political realm, we're more likely to find the ganging up to game the UNDUE issue, no matter how many reliable sources one provides. I think Ling.Nut hit the mark when he commented to Jimbo that Wiki doesn't seem to have a process to enforce our NPOV pillar-- Chavez has been POV for as long as I've been editing Wiki. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I appreciate all the feedback. I'm going to move the essay into main space now. Cla68 ( talk) 10:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Regarding the Removal of information section - could one then add "An easy way to spot an activist is to repeatedly insert Primary-sourced information or push for Undue Weight inclusion or prominence of either non-notable/borderline-notable or otherwise minor material? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

No. Not primary sources. From what I've seen activists will make it very obvious that they're pursuing an agenda, because they'll argue that non-self-published books and major newspapers and magazines can't be used in an article. I don't want to give any examples related to this essay, because I'm not trying to use it to pursue dispute resolution. But I know of many examples of what I'm talking about. Cla68 ( talk) 22:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll come at it the other way. I have tried to keep an eye on schizophrenia and major depressive disorder as two examples - the sheer size of each means we only use secondarily sourced material - anything else just doesn't cut it notability-wise WRT what we already have in the articles. We've created subpages on cause and treatment so issues can be explored further, but watching both articles can be taxing as alot of people with investment in just about any aspects feel their segment of information is critical to the article. These often involve primary sources. I try not to delete information, but transfer it to a more appropriate location (subarticle etc.) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, then you're proving my point about how to tell the difference between an activist and a good faith editor trying to follow NPOV. You are making an effort to include the essence of the information in some form, in some way. You're attempting to compromise, collaborate, and cooperate with the other editors, as opposed to what activists do. As a hypothetical example, I might add a paragraph to an article sourced to the New York Times and some book published by an independent publisher. If the paragraph gives a contrary view to the prevailing opinion in the article, an activists will usually just revert the paragraph out of hand without starting a talk page discussion on it. If I start a talk page discussion, the activist will likely start in with "The New York Times can't be used as a source in this topic" or "The person who wrote that book is a nutcase/non-expert/minor advocate/etc and can't be trusted", while at the same time insinuating that I'm a moron, not familiar enough with the page history, and that I might be editing on behalf of some banned editor. There is rarely a fine line, in my experience, between the behavior of activists and good faith editors trying to follow NPOV. Cla68 ( talk) 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but on thinking about it I do recall repeat offenders where it just turns into an edit war. And then there is the question of "new" accounts that appear well versed in wikishortcuts etc. It becomes a little more complex. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• As a very minor point, your illustration File:Battle strike 1934.jpg is too small for my aging eyes to make sense of in the draft. Needs a bigger thumb, a witty caption, or both. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 21:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 13:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 14:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Could you link to the vote in question? I don't understand what you're referring to. Cla68 ( talk) 20:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I got the same message; it was our bolded text. (I wasn't intending to vote either, but whaddayknow.) Awickert ( talk) 20:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Dougweller, you can remove it if necessary and I won't interfere. Cla68 ( talk) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Your userpage User:Cla68/Evidence/Sandbox has a category, and so appears in Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution.
As the guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a colon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]. Other categories might be involved too. - DePiep ( talk) 01:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I blanked it. Cla68 ( talk) 01:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I am curious. I have not waded into these articles really before now but have walked into one right now --> this page Watts Up With That? - we have Virginia Heffernan who first recommended the blog and then recanted or placed a caveat or whatever. Now we have the page where people want to use the first one and not the second. You'd agree that was a distortion or not? My preference is for both, and given all the blog post is an opinion I see no problem with that in our guidelines, but someone disagrees. So, how do you feel about that one? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Where is the RS Noticeboard thread on it? I looked and can't find it. Cla68 ( talk) 20:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

there. I can't believe the amount of text on this one point. I am also unaware if this is a 0RR on 1RR on article probation pages or what. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The two uninvolved editors at the noticeboard appear to be saying that her opinion can't be used at all, neither her original blog post or her follow-up comment. Cla68 ( talk) 22:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Seems like a bit of a reductionist/nuclear option to me. I do think that none is better than one, but would like to see warts'n'all two. What do you think? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I usually try to follow what the regulars at the noticeboards say, so in this case I would vote for the "none" option, which I believe SA just did by removing all mention of it. Cla68 ( talk) 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla -- FYI -- I noticed you were very involved in editing this article when it was GA nominated. I would like to get this article to GAR, and I have requested peer review. Since you are back to editing, your help would be appreciated in getting this article up to GA standards. By the way, I don't think that is what the uninvolved editors on the noticeboard were saying -- seems to me they were only commenting on the SPS caveat, but I could be wrong. Minor 4th 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

OK. I think I checked Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand and couldn't find any more information for the article. I'll check again and will also try to check Lexis/Nexis. Cla68 ( talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Rereading your comment, Cla, her original comment was not a blog post, it was a New York Times review. I don't think there's any question that review is reliably sourced. The RSN entry was not phrased well and its unclear what is being asked or in what context. Minor 4th 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

If a writer later corrects or caveats a statement they made, then it has to be noted. The problem is that her follow up was as a comment. So, in my opinion, it's either all or none for that information. Cla68 ( talk) 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I've watched this debate, but I haven't gotten involved because I've withdrawing from editing in this topic area. But my opinion is that the retraction should probably nullify the original statement, and none of it should be used. ATren ( talk) 01:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

That was my original thought too -- remove the whole thing, and that is the state of the article last I checked. However, looking at the issue more closely, her follow up Twitter post was not a retraction. She had apparently been receiving a deluge of angry mail, and she expressed regret generally -- I took it as regret that she had been swarmed by advocates, and perhaps regret that readers took her recommendation as an endorsement of the science content of the blog, a subject she said she was unfamiliar with. She did not retract her recommendation of the blog though and continue to remark about its positive features. She has some editorial control over that column at the NYT, and can retract or clarify the comment but hasn't. I don't want to come off sounding like an activist here, which is why I did not restore the content after SA removed it -- but this is the most notable review of the blog, and it's quite something to get a mention in the NYT. The article just doesn't seem complete without that in there -- on the other hand, it does seem incomplete to include the NYT bit without any sort of qualification. The thought of sourcing an opinion about the blog to a Twitter feed just makes my skin crawl. Further comments? Minor 4th 01:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Now that I think about it, if I'm "writing for the enemy" -- I have to admit that a similar issue came up on Monckton whereby there were reliable sources taking Monckton to task about his "claim" to be part of the House of Lords, and he answered in rebuttal, but various editors (namely ChrisO) would not allow the explanation in the article because it was self published. That really irritated me and seemed unfair to Monckton to portray him as a lunatic liar when he gave a reasonable explanation that was excluded from the article. It's a bit different because that was a very clear BLP issue that ended up making the article subject look stupid --- more egregious than the NYT review of a blog, but the point remains, including the NYT bit by itself does not present the entire picture. Y'all are right. Minor 4th 01:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Please show a little basic courtesy and respect my request to stay off my user page, unless you have something really important to say. Guettarda ( talk) 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

How about allowing a merge discussion to proceed without trying to disappear the article so quickly? Cla68 ( talk) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Please stop being silly. I've fixed up your spelling for you [179]. If you can't cope with that, don't comment there. Thanks William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Should I take that as a "no" that you won't be helping me expand the Climate Audit article? Cla68 ( talk) 12:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thought certain editors were not meant to edit other peoples comments mark nutley ( talk) 12:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I really don't know what the current status of that sanction is. Anyway, that edit doesn't really bother me. Cla68 ( talk) 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah good. Meanwhile, certain other editors are supposed to at least pretend to withdrawn from Cl Ch William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, if you plan on having Climate Audit go through the WP:GA process, I would like to help. Please let me know if there's any way that I can be of assistance. In particular, I've created a Wikipedia Reliable Sources Search engine which allows me to filter through web sites which don't meet Wikipedia's standards for secondary reliable sources. Also, your talk page is on my watch list so there's no need to inform me of any replies. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Because of its central involvement in Climategate, there is actually quite a bit out there on Climate Audit. I've started listing sources here. I'm listing sources there not only for the Climate Audit article, but also for Hockey stick controversy, RealClimate, Soon and Baliunas controversy, etc because those articles are all directly related to each other. Cla68 ( talk) 04:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I could also help a bit, although my WP volunteer time right now is very limited. I do know CA and the controversy well, and have contributed to most of the articles you (Cla) mentioned. I've +/- stopped doing hot-controvery CC stuff -- too stressful. Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Any help you wish to give with the article would be greatly appreciated. I find the "blog battles" aspect of the CC topic ( RealClimate, CA, WUWT, DeSmogBlog) and how some of it has been carried over into Wikipedia, with followers (or participants/contributors) of the different blogs trying to claim their use as reliable sources in CC articles, very interesting. DeSmogBlog and WUWT I think are about as good as we get them with the sources available right now. After CA I'd really like to get a complete article done on RealClimate. Cla68 ( talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Um. I'd forgotten that CA & McI had been split into two articles again. I'm more of a "lumper" but agnostic in this case. This does cool my enthusiasm to spend time on this -- I may do bit, and will follow you fellows' work, but I'm way over-committed right now, sigh. And up too late again.... Pete Tillman ( talk) 06:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Does anyone know of another article about a blog or a web site that we can use as an example for improving our Climate Audit. Maybe a FA or GA? Or just something well written? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

4chan and The Million Dollar Homepage are featured articles. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

DeSmogBlog, Operation Clambake, Slashdot and Whedonesque.com are good articles. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I've removed your latest, per the notice at the top of my talk page about repetition. If you have anything new to say, you're welcome to say it. But please don't interrupt conersations with other people William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

WMC, in contrast to your attitude about your talk page, you are free and welcome to post on my page whenever you desire. I have never "banned" anyone from my talk page. I archive all the threads on an archive page where others can peruse them if they desire. I don't delete comments that I don't like. I believe the only edits I've ever removed were bot notices. Cla68 ( talk) 07:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Just in case you didn't see it: [180]. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68, a heads-up: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Proposed_FoF:_NuclearWarfare_has_failed_to_uphold_BLP_policy_in_the_manner_expected_of_an_administrator, which relates to an enforcement request that you originally brought back in July. -- JN 466 23:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

There is a discussion of your use of sources in the climate change topic area at User talk:Newyorkbrad. -- TS 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla: I've seen the documents and seen GregJackP's statements, Risker was definitely in the right in both the spirit and letter of the NLT policy. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey [181]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen [182]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller ( talk) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I was very sorry to see your name on this list. My interactions with you have always been pleasant, and I saw no behavior that would justify such an action.

Oh, well. It looks like your interests are broad enough that you can still contribute to Wikipedia, and I hope you do. We'll miss your constructive editing in climate change.

Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you. The primary reason for me getting involved with the topic was to try to stop the abuses that were going on within it. As the arbcom decision shows, the experience was very bruising. Time will tell whether I accomplished what I set out to do. Nevertheless, I enjoyed working with you on those articles and wish you the best in your continued efforts to improve and expand the topic's information.

By the way, due to real life issues with the demands that Wikipedia editing was placing on my time, I've had to stop editing. I have some images that I need to get uploaded as requested by some editors in some threads above. I hope to get those uploaded slowly but surely, but I think my time editing Wikipedia will be dramatically less for the indefinite future. Cla68 ( talk) 08:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Cla68, I second Pete's note here. I have never seen you put a word out of place ever. I'd like to hope that this great 'ArbCom climate change resolution' makes a difference but it's pretty hard to think it will seeing some of the good names on this list. Anyhow, do what I've been doing for the last six months. Have a life! Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Alex. Cla68 ( talk) 01:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. -- TS 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply

In a comment at the clarification request, you wrote: [183]

• TenofAllTrades, me and the others you mention were invited here by the filing party, Tony Sidaway.

I do acknowledge that you were notified of the request, as the guidance of the arbitrators on the topic affects expectations of your future conduct and, should you ever choose to return to the topic, the kind of error you need to avoid. I did not intend that you should break your topic ban, as you did in making an edit there attacking other topic-banned editors: [184]

• It seems that much, if not all of WMC's entire Internet presence is centered on being an advocate battling to influence the content of Wikipedia's CC articles (also check the comments to that post and WMC's responses to them). It's up to you guys on how to proceed from here, I offer no suggestions.

You also made comments at the Marknutley enforcement request, to which you cannot claim to have been "invited", and again you used the opportunity to exacerbate interpersonal disputes related to climate change. [185] [186] [187].

In recent days you have also continued to edit your essay Wikipedia:Activist [188] [189] [190] which is worrying because it appears to me at least to be closely related to the tenor of your editing in the climate change topic, and your description of activist psychology seems to be a sly dig at William Connolley. But perhaps others less involved in the climate change topic would judge that essay more kindly.

I'm asking you not to respond to this. I'm asking you please, because the topic ban is there for a purpose and I know you value Wikipedia as highly as I do, to take the Arbitration Committee's directions to heart and go and find something else to do. -- TS 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Tony, I resent your bad faith efforts to try to draw me back into the CC dispute so you can use it to criticize me. It's very transparent what you're doing, and it reflects very poorly on you. No one has caused more unnecessary drama since the CC case closed than you. I really hope that you'll go try and expand an article and at least get one passed by Good Article, which I don't believe you've ever done, and leave the CC article policing to administrators. If you need any copyediting help or any other assistance with a non-CC article, feel free to ask me. I'll crosspost this to your user talk page to make sure you get it. Cla68 ( talk) 10:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I've taken this to WP:AE. This is your formal notification. [191]. -- TS 11:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Tony, I think it will be helpful for all if you'll accept that you have, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, no authority over me, any other editor, or over any topic area. Again, if you'll make an effort to expand and enlarge an article outside of the CC topic area, I'll be glad to help you out. Just let me know which article you choose. Cla68 ( talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68,

While your comment may apply to certain editors, in case of me, the situaton is actually the opposite. There haven't been any issues with me editing any articles here. In 2008, when I had more time for Wikipedia than I have now, I spend some time rewriting thermodynamics articles. When some months ago another editor made some changes, bringing in a bit more the perspective from chemical engineering (I wrote it more from the theoretical physics perspective), I thought that was a good thing for Wikipedia, despite some objections to some issues. These articles should be authored by the Wikipedia community, not by "Count Iblis" or any other single editor.

The reason I got in trouble a bit, is due to the factionalist mentality that exists here in some areas to some extent. I defended Brews Ohare despite arguing against him on the speed of light issue and in the ArbCom case about this. Wrong on one issue and having some issues with working together with others, shouldn't automaticaly imply "hopeless case, let's boot him out of Wikipedia". But with this stance I took after the ArbCom case, I broke with the faction and as a result, I got branded as being part of the "wrong faction".

What also plays a role here is that the editing issues regarding Brews are not as well visible to outsiders compared to e.g the Climate Change case. What then happens is that I when I got labeled to be "Brews' advocate", that label then stuck, despite being nonsense based on actually editing articles. ArbCom even acted on this by passing an advocacy resstriction (which has now expired).

To see just how ridiculous this is, just imagine that in 6 months from now, William would actually defend you and argue that you should be allowed back to edit CC articles (despite disagreements related to the topic). But then William gets attacked for breaking with his faction, disputes start within his faction, and then ArbCom decides to sanction William for provoking a battlefield atmosphere in his faction.

This is difficult to imagine, but if you were one of just a few sceptical editors here, you can perhaps see how something like this could happen. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your comments, but I'm afraid it would be difficult for me to respond without being accused of betraying the spirit of my topic ban. I invite you to join the off-wiki forum and give your thoughts in that thread on how the science topics and the editors who edit them are treated in Wikipedia. Cla68 ( talk) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 19:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Activist, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Activist during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:

• 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
• 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

—  Coren  ^(talk), for the Committee, 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey,

I was considering getting a shakujō - have you ever seen any for sale and would you have a rough idea how much one would cost? TheGoodLocust ( talk) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Most Buddhist temples and sects in Japan sell stuff like that, sometimes over the Internet, but it appears the shakujō isn't a common religious item. Because of its size, it may be very expensive to get shipped. I'll look into it. Cla68 ( talk) 23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for looking, don't kill yourself over it though, as you say, the shipping might make the price rather unreasonable. I may have to resort to more American methods of smiting the minor devils that plague me. I saw an extremely nice looking one on ebay, but they were asking for 50 grand, which is slightly more than what I'd want to spend on a nice walking stick/conversation starter. Cheers. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Fifty grand? I could probably ask some local craftsmen monks to make one from scratch for a fifth of that price. Looks like I'm in the wrong line of work. Cla68 ( talk) 01:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, if I'm going to get one made from scratch then I'll get one with 12 rings and hope that in impersonating the Buddha I'll be able to recoup my investment. I found another nice looking one here, but neither the price nor the website are to my liking. If you are curious then here is a link to the 50k one. And on a lighter note, a one-armed Buddhist monk performing a kata with a shakujo. I'm beginning to think that it may be too expensive to purchase a shakujo and I may have to wait until I fulfill my dream of owning a mall that has an on-site Buddhist monastery with imported Shaolin monks for grounds-keeping and security duties. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 04:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

That shakujo in the first link doesn't appear to have a full-length staff, which may be why that one only costs $1,000. I'm still trying to get a native Japanese speaker to search some other Buddhist merchandise sites to see what's out there. Cla68 ( talk) 13:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I found some more links which I will post on your userpage. Cla68 ( talk) 22:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply

This wording did not have consensus. Cptnono ( talk) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?

In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I saw you comment on Binksternet , and I was wondering what "Iran-related articles" are you talking about? Could you post some examples of your edits here? I frequently edit this topical area, and I don't recall ever encountering you. Kurdo777 ( talk) 09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

It has been awhile, so I'll have to look around to see which articles it was. A couple of them were related to the Israel/Palestine conflict in which I added information on Iran's involvement in supplying arms to the Palestinian militants. Other edits were to articles on Iranian military weapons and operations. Cla68 ( talk) 09:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I'd appreciate it if you could provide some evidence, like diff links. Are you sure that the editors who reverted you were Iranian? Maybe you just made a wrong assumption. I believe you're generalizing a bit. Most Iranian editors I encounter around here , neither care about, nor have any involvement on topics dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kurdo777 ( talk) 09:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I never said that the editors who reverted me were Iranian. Cla68 ( talk) 09:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

It is a personal attack.

Continuing down this path will lead to unpleasant results.

Read WP:VANDAL for more on the subject.

Until you decide to apologize for that remark and edit summary, do not edit my user talkpage.

jps ( talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I would have called this edit vandalism had I seen it show up on my watchlist done by an IP editor or a new redlink editor. Why did you write "piss-poor" as a judgment offered up in a neutral encyclopedia? I defend the term "vandalize" as used by Cla68 to describe that "piss-poor" addition to a doomed FAQ page. Binksternet ( talk) 04:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC) reply

An interesting commentary, but confusing considering that it is not being done in article-space. Calling a source "piss-poor" is something that might be very useful in a neutral encyclopedia. For example, the Urantia Book is a piss-poor source with regards to historical accuracy. See what I mean? WP:VANDAL defines vandalism a LOT more tightly than just strong language. The edit also has to be content-free. I've gotten in trouble in the past for calling people who are making good faith edits "vandals" when they weren't vandals, so I know what I'm talking about here. jps ( talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Cla68 used the verb "vandalize" to describe your one action, not the noun "vandal" to describe you. Binksternet ( talk) 14:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

re: "he ordered me not to edit his page" [192]. not a big issue, but in the future don't let pissy demands like that stop you from fulfilling administrative requirements. Go ahead and post the notice; he's within his rights to delete it immediately if he doesn't want you on his talk page, but you will have observed due diligence in the matter. that will save you the kind of nitpicky wikilawyering (nitwikilawyering?) that you're already getting. -- Ludwigs2 06:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I've submitted a request for clarification concerning your recent edits to Wikipedia talk:Activist. See here. -- TS 21:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Theistic science theories, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Both Jprw and the dynamic IP are editing on the same articles, Roger Scruton and Right-wing politics. Both articles have been semi-protected because of sockpuppetry by the IP, and several of the IP addresses have been blocked for sockpuppetry. There is some similarity between the writing style of Jprw and the IP.

Jprw has chosen to post comments by the blocked IP on talk pages and to restore deleted comments by the IP, which is meatpuppetry. He also has a history of edit-warring.

That evidence is sufficient to create suspicion and the best way to resolve the suspicion is through SPI. The administrators at SPI have experience in identifying sockpuppets and checkuser. It would be wrong however to make accusations outside SPI. If my suspicions are incorrect however it sould be fairly simple for Jprw to end this.

TFD ( talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The SPI is based on weak evidence and doesn't look to me like it will go anywhere, in spite of you trying to draw in more admins by posting about it at ANI. Cla68 ( talk) 02:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

When a page is protected because of sockpuppetry by blocked editors, would you post the comments of those editors in order to assist them in evading the block? TFD ( talk) 03:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

You're talking about an article talk page, right? I probably wouldn't restore them, but I probably wouldn't delete them either unless they were posting vulgar vandalism. Again, however, this doesn't appear to have much to do with trying to prove that jprw is a sock. Cla68 ( talk) 04:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

While I have no doubt that your intentions are good in trying to advise ZuluPapa5, I don't think that your contributions are appropriate in this area. Your advice to ZuluPapa5 that he blank his evidence pages rather than have them deleted directly contradicts the instructions in the Arbitration remedies ( #Deletion of evidence sub-pages). I also believe that you're treading very close to your own topic ban in the climate change area, by commenting on content and involving yourself in disputes intimately related to that subject. Finally, your own history in this area makes it difficult for other editors to perceive you as an 'honest broker' here. If you intend to comment further, I would strongly urge you to first seek an official clarification or amendment from the ArbCom; any other route is likely to lead directly to an arbitration enforcement request. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the advice Ten. Cla68 ( talk) 22:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah, leave it to the "neutrals" like TOAT. :-) ATren ( talk) 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I wish I had a dime for every time I've been threatened with a block, administrator intervention, or Arbcom report or enforcement request by an editor who didn't appreciate my involvement in an issue whose outcome was apparently important to them for one reason or another. Cla68 ( talk) 06:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reply

This is a problematic issue raised by my colleague, Joshua Zelinsky...

Outcast User:Moulton being annoying, continuing to expose corrupt editors IDCab

User:Moulton who was banned ^{citation needed} for persistent disruption ^{citation needed}, has been editing the last few days via IP addresses where he has continued to try to out the same editors he had a beef with before his ban. This is the most recent example. A block would be helpful. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why JoshuaZ is on the warpath against Moulton, but Moulton allegedly posted some comments to a BLP Talk page, and JoshuaZ removed it. [193] Read it for yourself if you want to decide who is being disruptive. Roger ( talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Joshua Zelinsky is on the warpath on behalf of IDCab because in the last battle of this epic MMPORG, those on the side of accuracy, ethics, and excellence in online media beat their brains out. Or more precisely, Charles Ainsworth beat their brains out at ArbCom . So they obviously don't want anyone to do that again. But the sensible thing to do would be to correct the blatant errors in the BLPs. I mean is that too much to ask? — Moulton 08:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering that multiple admins just removed those diffs, deleted them, and then blocked the IP address, this seems pretty clear cut. Anyway, problem resolved. I'm marking the section as resolved. JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, one of those admins was me (coming across the issue via WP:BLPN on my watchlist); I've blocked the IP for one month and deleted some text and revision-deleted some things. I was going to ask someone else to take another look at the incident in case any further action is needed, as I need to log off now. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Feel free to block all 160,000 Verizon IPs in Eastern Massachusetts, plus a slew of IPs in two other states. Also, feel free to invite Jimbo Wales to shut down Wikiversity, as FeloniousMonk sought to do the last time around. Lot of good it did him, eh? — Barry Kort 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Marking as unresolved. He's continuing to evade the block and reposting his outing User talk:Schlafly and at Talk:David Berlinski. Suggest semiprotection of that page, and this page (since he's now posting comments here) is in order. JoshuaZ ( talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't his only IP - I recently blocked User:68.160.132.4 as Moulton too. Raul654 ( talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's used other IPs on BLPN, Schafly talk page, Talk:David Berlinski, and User talk:rd232. Hence my request for semi-protection. JoshuaZ ( talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have a quarter million IPs in three states. Do you propose to block them all? Or would you prefer negotiate a peaceable resolution of my dispute with the tattered remnants of IDCab? — Moulton 06:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He's threatening to continue saying he has access to vast numbers of IPs if we don't negotiate a resolution. Dougweller ( talk) 07:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Are you alarmed by the fact that Verizon service in Eastern Massachusetts comprises a block of some 160,000 dynamic IPs? — Moulton 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't something be done about his posts at User talk:Schlafly#David Berlinski -- including the fact that his signature links to his Wikiuniversity page rather than the IP he's using to evade the ban? Dougweller ( talk) 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Of course something should be done. They should be thoughtfully responded to by Roger and other interested and responsible parties who care about accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media. — Moulton 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And I presume here, using another Wikiversity ID [194] as a link instead of the IP address. Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Caprice can never die. — Albatross 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In view of this and this combined with the general threat/boast from this character, I have semi-protected ANI for three hours. Favonian ( talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I recommend against moral panic at the discovery of moral bankruptcy. Unless, of course we are crafting a comic opera about moral panic at the revelation of moral bankruptcy. My perplexity is that I can't tell the difference between a comic opera and reality here on Wikipedia. — Gastrin Bombesin 10:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How may we address this? — Caprice 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is an instance of the Corollary to Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a corrupt bureaucracy makes a mistake, not only can it not be fixed, it can't even be mentioned. Evar. — Montana Mouse 11:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You fool. It's a losing cause. You're playing Mafia Wars with a gang that has bigger banhammers than you. — Barsoom Tork 13:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have observed some of the incidents mentioned above over the last couple of weeks, although I didn't see the ANI thread. I don't have any comment at this time. Cla68 ( talk) 22:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

It's appropriate for both sides of a dispute to post to a noticeboard. The account who posted initially misstated the objection and didn't fully describe the dispute. A message like your might be better when engaged editors (from either side) begin dominate the discussion to the exclusion of outside input.   Will Beback  talk  15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The other account appeared to try to present both sides of the dispute. Your comments didn't. There it is. Are you sure your personal feelings on that topic aren't a little too intense? Cla68 ( talk) 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree that the account apparently tried to show both sides, but did not succeed in including all of the issues and thus mischaracterized the dispute. My posting made no attempt to show both sides because I assume the account laid out his own version adequately. I simply pointed out some of the issues from my perspective. I have no personal feeling about Pirogov. However I am a bit tired of HK pushing poor-quality sources while trying to delete good quality sources in order to further the pro-LaRouche POV, and I'm also a bit tired of WR denizens supporting his socks and his personal attacks. HK has been editing here for longer than I have. Why don't you go ask him about his personal feeling on the topic, and ask him to maybe stop editing for a while?   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Will, if the LaRouche articles were as NPOV as they could be, there wouldn't be a problem. Instead of treating this as a personal battle between you and a banned editor, why don't you work on making those articles more neutral? Are you willing and able to do so, or are your personal feelings getting in the way? Cla68 ( talk) 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't have any personal feelings about the subject of those articles. As I've said before, I'm willing to work with any established editor to improve the LaRouche related articles. I believe they are neutral now, but every article can be improved. However HK is not satisfied with NPOV articles, and he keeps coming back to add dubious assertions and remove well-sourced material. As for making it personal, take a look at HK's contributions to WR - he's obsessed with me. I think it's bizarre that Wikipedia editors like yourself support him.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Again, you keep bringing it back to "HK". It's obvious that you see this as a battle between you and him. When I look at the articles, I see you trying to prevent reliable sources from being used, often using specious and disingenuous rationales. To be honest, I think your personal feelings on the topic are preventing you from seeing it objectively. Cla68 ( talk) 22:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Given that he has been to the ArbCom three times, and eventually site baned, I'd say it's more of a battle between HK and Wikipedia. I don't think I've ever made any "specious or disingenuous" arguments. It's easy to make that claim, but without support you're just engaging in a personal attack. As I said before, I'd be happy to work with you or other established editors on the article, but I'm disappointed that instead of taking it on directly you support HK on WR and his socks on WP. Do you think HK views LaRouche objectively, having followed or even worked for him for thirty years?   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I notice that you characterize my participation in the topic's content discussions as "supporting HK." Remember, I started this article, which has since been greatly expanded by other editors, none of whom I believe were "HK socks", after you and another editor had spent years dismissing the topic as a figment of LaRouche's imagination. Thus, this ongoing battle between you and HK and his, as you characterize it, hordes of socks, is damaging Wikipedia. I wish you would stop it. Cla68 ( talk) 23:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

With whom were those old discussions of the landbridge held? Who is the chief admin of WR? Who keeps appearing on the LaRouche pages, year after year, making the same proposals? Do you really believe that HK has not edited WP since he was blocked in 2006?   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Again, what is with this myopia and obsession with HK? The Larouche article failed FAC in 2005. Six editors objected to it, saying it had NPOV problems. Two of those were HK socks, four were not. If the NPOV concerns with the article were corrected, then it probably could make FA. You have had six years to do so. Unfortunately, this ongoing battle to ensure that "HK doesn't win" appears to be getting in the way. Cla68 ( talk) 23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

If HK never returns to Wikipedia then I won't have to deal with him again. I'd be very happy for that to happen. As for FA status, I already brought one LaRouche-related article that far. If you can get HK to stay away I'd be willing to do the same with the bio. Are you willing to stand up to your WR buddy and run interference for productive WP editors?   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

As you can see from a recent exchange on that article talk page, I try to uphold Wikipedia's rules with everyone, including you. I don't agree with your stance on the foreign language sources. I don't think your stance on those sources is productive. If you're taking that stance simply because you believe that HK is behind the suggestion that those sources be used, then your personal feelings are getting in the way of improving Wikipedia, and I find that very unfortunate. Cla68 ( talk) 02:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Can you answer any of the questions I asked in my last post?   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Run interference? If an HK sock is identified by a checkuser, which I am not one, the account is immediately blocked. If an account is not identified by checkuser as a sock, then WP:AGF requires us to treat the account as an equal editor. So, there's nothing I need to change here. I do, however, think that you need to change a few things about how you behave in relation to the LaRouche topic. Cla68 ( talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

CLA68, your opinion on military matters is worthy of respect. But on the matter of HK I am not interested in what you have to say. You support someone who explicitly violates the site's policies in order to promote a fringe view, and who operates a site where his main activity is attacking Wikipedia editors. You support him in both endeavors.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Will, the reason you have been losing so many arguments lately in Wikipedia is because your stance on several issues, such as BLP, is wrong. Your attitude towards editing in many ways reminds me of behavior that was tolerated in Wikipedia five or six years ago, but fortunately appears to have faded into the past for most of the high-participation editors in the project. Wikipedia Review has played an important role in helping change the editing environment in Wikipedia. I believe, however, that the major reason for the change in the editing environment is because most editors have had it with that way of doing things and no longer accept it. Cla68 ( talk) 23:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

If you think there's a problem with my editing then start an RfC. However, since you have spent years supporting violations of site policy by a banned editor who pushes a fringe view and launches vitriolic attacks of Wikipedia editors, it's apparent that your concern for the policies of this project is limited.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

And yes, I did see that, and appreciated it.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I think you're approaching this from the wrong side, Charles. It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere? 120.23.0.60 ( talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I have no idea what any of that means.

Cla68, I'd be happy to discuss the evidence with any admin who doesn't pal around with HK on WR. For the reasons listed above, I don't think it would be appropriate to share confidential information concerning HK with you. Angel's flight is welcome to post unblock requests on his talk page. One has already bee denied.   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

So, the only people who have seen any of this "evidence" are two editors who have taken an adversarial position with Angel's flight over that article and a checkuser who voted in the past as a member of ArbCom to sanction the editor, and now does not respond to requests to confirm whether the IPs were the same or not, the same one to deny the block appeal. Cla68 ( talk) 05:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Just in case you didn't see, here is some POV pushing evidence I found for you. Jesanj ( talk) 18:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

And, if you're interested, check this out. Jesanj ( talk) 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you dispute my assertion that Angel's flight was violating WP:NPOV by pushing a POV that has been published by the LaRouche movement? Jesanj ( talk) 19:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The diffs you linked to that I looked at didn't show POV-pushing to me. As is pointed out in this essay, (which SlimVirgin assisted me in writing, and I really appreciate her help with it), POV-pushing usually involves unilateral removal of material cited to reliable sources, edit-warring to back up the removal, accompanying incivility on the article talk page, and attempted additions of pejorative information to the BLPs of people who are critics of the movement, idea, philosophy, or platform in question. Cla68 ( talk) 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking a look. And thanks for the link, I read the essay. Jesanj ( talk) 02:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud]]. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Japan for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 04:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The Signpost article on WP Japan is scheduled to run this Monday. In light of the recent earthquake, is there anything else you'd like to request from our readers? If so, feel free to add the new information to the "anything else" section of the interview. - Mabeenot ( talk) 17:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you mind if I just cut-and-paste move the discussion from Talk:Solar energy to Talk:Cost of electricity by source? This seems to be a more appropriate discussion place.-- E8 ( talk) 00:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Sure, no problem. Cla68 ( talk) 00:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Done.-- E8 ( talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hoping you and your family are OK. Are you near the epicenter? ATren ( talk) 12:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Regardless of any differences we've had on Wikipedia, I just wanted to add that, having seen the news from Japan this morning, I hope that you, your family, and your friends are safe and getting by in what must be an incredibly difficult time. If there's anything you think that I, as a private citizen in the U.S., could do to help, please let me know. MastCell  ^Talk 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the concern. My area in Kanagawa didn't suffer much heavy damage. In fact, nothing in my house even fell over. I've previously traveled or spent time in some of the places you can see in the tsunami videos, however, and I'm astounded by the level of destruction. It may take some time for those communities to recover. Cla68 ( talk) 22:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm glad to hear that you're OK. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

On Japanese TV, I just saw rescuers pulling a little kid out of a collapsed house. It appears that his parents didn't make it. The scale of the destruction is really starting to emerge this morning (it's 0830 here). I think the damage from this quake will be worse than the Great Hanshin earthquake, but the death toll may hopefully be lower, because Tohoku is more sparsely populated and the quake hit in the afternoon of a workday instead of early in the morning. Cla68 ( talk) 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The tsunami images are mindblowing indeed. Weird, after NZ and everything too. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

They were saying on the radio here that there may be aftershocks for weeks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, the aftershocks woke us up several times during the night, but they weren't really that strong. Me and my family had gone to the Kanagawa disaster preparedness center/museum a couple of weeks ago and rode their eathquake simulator. My wife told me that when the earthquake hit yesterday afternoon, our kids immediately went and got under the kitchen table as they had taught us to do at the center. At work, I yelled at my coworkers to get under their desks, but they ignored me, of course, and ran outside which you're not supposed to do. Fortunately, no one was hurt and there wasn't any damage to our building. Also, fortunate for us, is that few of us had to rely on the trains to get home. Cla68 ( talk) 02:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Today, Japanese broadcast media were able to reach more isolated coastal villages and towns. The extent of the damage is almost incomprehensible. A number of towns with 10,000-20,000+ inhabitants have basically been wiped off the map. It's hard to estimate how many people died, however, because many people did respond to the tsunami warnings and made it to high ground in time, but many others, in some towns up to half the population, remain missing. Cla68 ( talk) 10:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Horrible for the small towns! Glad you are okay. Binksternet ( talk) 15:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Also glad to hear you and your family are OK. If you have time, would you be able to look here and check that the links I've piped behind the names used by the Japan Meteorological Agency point to the correct locations? Those are the location of JMA tsunami recording stations. I was concerned that Erimo one in particular made little sense, but it seems there was a big surge up there in Hokkaidō as well - are there cliffs up there? I also noticed this: "In the space of an hour, tsunami waves swept inland, buffeting Japan's coast from Erimo in the northern island of Hokkaido to Oarai, Fukushima, about 670 kilometers to the south, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency. The waves reached as far as 20 kilometers inland, NHK reported." From that, I fear I may have mis-linked to Ōarai, Ibaraki. Are there two places called Oarai along that coastline? Carcharoth ( talk) 05:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe that there is something wrong with the Erimo and Oarai numbers. Either you have them linked right and the sensor readings are faulty, or they are from two different locations with similar-sounding names in Fukushima, Miyagi, or Iwate prefectures. If the latter, it could be that the sensor location names for those two places are using the names of towns or locations that aren't widely used anymore because towns have combined since then or something like that. The names could sound the same but be written with different Kanji, making it difficult to figure out where they are located. One way would be to access the Japanese page from the meteorlogical agency, compare the two tables from the English and Japanese pages to find the city names, then transcribe the kanji into the search box in the Japanese wikipedia or Japanese Google and see what comes up. I'll see what I can do to find out the answer. I'll probably take the easy way and ask a Japanese acquaintance to help me out. Cla68 ( talk) 06:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Local geography and seafloor topology near the coast can cause tsunamis to do funny things. In particular, as wave systems, they refract and bend around capes and can be magnified if funneled down a bay. That is why there was so much damage in one of those ports over in North America - the bay funnels the energy and focuses it on the port (same thing happened with earlier tsunamis). What I've never understood though is what determines whether the surge or fall happens first - some places get a fall in water level first, others get little to no warning (see the 'Initial Tsunami Observation' map here). Anyway, I'm convinced that Erimo is correct, as this map clearly shows the red value on Hokkaido and if you hover over it, it says Erimo. You can hover over the other red values as well on that map. On the map one sector down, you can hover over Oarai, which looks to me to be in Ibaraki prefecture, rather than Fukushima prefecture (would you agree?). It is surprising how few detectors there are along that coast and none on the Fukushima coast, which is why I was puzzled when the newspaper article put Oarai in Fukushima prefecture ( 134 hits versus 34,000 hits). Don't forget that the whirlpool was near Oarai, Ibaraki. What I was also hoping for was something explaining what 'oki' and 'shi' and 'cho' mean in the names the JMA use. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, well at least I can help with that without confusing things more. Without seeing the kanji, oki likely means coast or offshore, shi means city, and cho means town. Cla68 ( talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• The sakura are coming into full bloom in the Kanto area this week. This means they'll be blooming in Tōhoku in another week or so. The fact that these blossoms symbolize rebirth and renewal is not lost on the people here as they begin to climb out of the well of this disaster. The blossoms blooming at this time is a very poignant and timely event and perhaps one of the most emotionally intense episodes of the hanami season in Japan since World War II. Cla68 ( talk) 06:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to say, you have a very good looking user page and your contributions to the Japan Earthquake 2011 page have been very positive and thorough! Keep up the good work. Rsteilberg 00:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteilberg ( talk • contribs)

Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The WikiProject Japan Signpost article scheduled for this week was postponed in light of the earthquake, tsunami, and ongoing nuclear crisis. We would like to publish the interview within the next couple weeks with updated information that takes into account the events in Japan. Please take an opportunity to return to the interview page to answer some additional questions located at the bottom of the page. This is also an opportunity to revise any previous answers if you feel the need. We hope to bring your story to a wider audience. Thanks again for your participation. - Mabeenot ( talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't recall exactly if it was you or Roger Davis that said something about US gov't sock puppets not existing. Huh? Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't see any mention of Wikipedia in that article. Don't you have other things you could be worrying about? Cla68 ( talk) 22:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note. I don't see any specific concerns or policy violations. Could you point to what aspect of my edits is problematic? Please provide diffs.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

That diff wasn't so informative. Did that editor ever make a comment that wasn't a joke? [195]   Will Beback  talk  06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I haven't cast aspersions on anyone. If you reread the thread, you'll see that the aspersions were being cast in my direction.   Will Beback  talk  07:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla68, I noticed your kind words to IP 140.247.126.237. Very nice gesture. — Ched :  ?  07:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you. The thing is, when I first started editing Wikipedia, I made some of the same mistakes the IP made, such as adding uncited information. Fortunately for me, some editors patiently and kindly explained how things worked. So, I really cringed when I saw how that IP was treated by an experienced editor. Cla68 ( talk) 07:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Just out of curiosity, if you say that I have bitten a newbie during the course of my edits here, what makes you not guilty of biting an oldie? Please try to be impartial in your choice of words, as it is very evident that you're taking this personally as well (no need to guess, it's written all over your statements everywhere including those on ANI), two wrong doesn't make one right, wouldn't you agree? For the record, reverting a recently happened event that is clearly not in line with the editing guidelines and policies laid down on WP:AIR (and per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS) is not a direct violation of 3RR, per se. And if you're not a task-force member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, you won't have the slightest idea what we're dealing with on a daily basis and unless you do, I will hold my piece of you but not before that. I'm going for a break now, best and out. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Dave, I made some of the same mistakes that that IP made when I first started editing Wikipedia. You didn't even attempt to help the IP improve what he/she was trying to do. Instead, you immediately reverted AND added threatening hidden text to the article. Then, you insulted the IP on the article talk page. Unnacceptable and inexcusable. Then, you tried to get the IP blocked for "vandalism", apparently to try to cover up the 3RR violation you had just committed. The IP is a shared IP, so you would have blocked innocent parties if admins had listened to you, which fortunately they didn't. Furthermore, the incident was notable enough to be included in the article, so you were wrong content-wise. In other words, you were wrong all the way around. If the reason you acted that way is because you're becoming jaded, cynical, and/or frustrated with editors adding sketchy stuff to aviation articles, then you need to take a break, because your reactions in this case were extremely unhelpful and counterproductive. Cla68 ( talk) 22:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• I'm not going to say that you're a clueless tadpole but please read this article → Wikipedia:Observations on Wikipedia behavior ← before you make any more avoidable mistakes. Out. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Dave, that essay is written like a horoscope. It has enough general truth that anyone and everyone can find a lot in it they agree with. One thing I've seen a lot of lately (the last couple of years) is people trying to "defend" articles and associated topics from "fringe theories", "junk science", "non-notable trivia or events," "UNDUE opinions", etc. There are two things we need to remember, in addition to showing some forbearence with new editors: (1) It's a wiki, which means that cooperation, collaboration, and compromise are not just encouraged, but required, in all topics, and (2) Don't worry about articles being "ruined". If people add stuff to an article you think is stupid, please don't be too quick to revert them and make them feel unwelcome. There are some topics in Wikipedia in which groups of regular editors have become so hostile to anyone but them making edits to the article, that it is almost impossible for outside editors to make any headway in improving said topic. I don't think that's a very desirable outcome. Cla68 ( talk) 06:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• WP:TLDR, I stand to be corrected. Adieu~! -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey Cla68. Removing an you made to the 'See Also' list in the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce a year ago, as there is no clear context and the topic is not similar nor directly related. I'm assuming that this involved an error, but figured I should drop you a line. 0x69494411 01:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven ( talk • contribs)

I was planning on expanding the article linked to in the See also, which would have shown the link between the two, but I never got around to it. I'm currently prohibited by ArbCom sanction (total topic ban) from discussing the topic in any detail. Cla68 ( talk) 22:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I had a good look online for this and couldn't see anything - even the Washington Post's website gave 186mph or 300km/h. Can you clarify the source? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Your request for arbitration has been declined. The Arbitrators felt that the checkuser issue was handled by the audit subcommittee, who found no evidence of wrongdoing, and that a lack of current activity meant that the issue was not ready for a full case.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 11:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'll do an RfC as recommended by one of the Members and link to it here and elsewhere once it's posted. Cla68 ( talk) 11:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You're entitled to file an RfCU against me, of course, but I trust it won't contain the same unsubstantiated accusations that've already been rejected by the ArbCom once or twice. I don't know why you're harassing me like this and seemingly proxying for a banned user, but it has been going on for some time. It's starting to feel like wikihounding.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The ArbCom has put off-limits articles that are even slightly connected to climate change:

• 3) Climate Change topic bans:

Those covered by this remedy should avoid initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia. LaRouche pubs are leading sources on the topic and it's been one of their main issues. I only just came across all of this and thought you should know to avoid any problems.   Will Beback  talk  11:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Who decides the word? -- Thepm ( talk) 11:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I have been since so far no one else has participated. If more people want to join in, we could set up a central page in someone's userspace somewhere and take turns choosing a word for the week. Cla68 ( talk) 22:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I think it's a wonderful idea, sign me up! :) -- Thepm ( talk) 22:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Page created. All invited. Cla68 ( talk) 01:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, Cla68. As you may have noticed, I have taken a break from editing pending resolution of your actions. Per discussion with arbcom members I am hereby formally requesting that you stop following me or engaging me in any articles/noticeboard discussion that I am involved in that you had not previously been involved in before you were asked to follow me around off-wiki. I will certainly try to avoid you when and where I can. Thanks. IronDuke 16:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry, Iron Duke, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you refresh my memory? I haven't been in any discussion with ArbCom about you, that I can remember, so I don't have a clue what your reference to "arbcom members" refers to. Cla68 ( talk) 22:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

(ec)Thanks for replying so quickly. You first got my attention when you posted on my talk page [196], asking me to take six months off of editing because I had been less than welcoming to a user named User:Machn, an SPA editing the Leo Frank article who made anti-semitic and racist comments and edits. I was puzzled by this, both in terms of the editor you were defending (who made references to the “Jew pervert” Leo Frank, and referred to me as Mr. Ebonics because of typos in some of my posts and was eventually banned for using multiple sockpuppets), and also wondering why you had suddenly appeared on my talk page, when you had nothing to do with the article in question. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that, until someone alerted me to the fact that you had taken part in a discussion on Wikipedia Review initiated by two permabanned users, User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:gnetwerker, who seemed to be suggesting that someone initiate a campaign of harassment against me. As gnetwerker had in fact wikistalked me, on and off, for a number of years, I hope you can see why I found this to be cause for concern.

Understandably, you refused to admit where you had gotten the idea to begin this campaign, and instead focused on urging an anon IP to help you with the stalking. The full discussion can be seen here.

Some highlights (with editing/snipping):

OK, I'm going to put that and other articles that IronDuke regularly edits on my watchlist. If he continues with the same type of behavior I will report him to the appropriate authorities. Please let me know if he continues with the behavior. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And also:

If you'll check the workshop page for that case, you'll see that IronDuke openly admits to having no intention of following WP:NPOV. For an editor who has been around as long as he has, I don't understand why he is allowed to get away with behaving the way he does. If he does it again, I will be reporting thim to the ArbCom enforcement board. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Then in response to the IP who was editing disruptively on Helen Thomas:

I know I shouldn't make claims about Ironduke's motivations, but after the treatment I've had from him and his friends, it would seem that at the very least they think making (entirely false) claims about someone's motivations is fine; and, as Ironduke likes to tell me, he is a wikipedia expert. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please give me some diffs and links to get me started. In case you don't know what I mean, a diff is the url to the edit made by an editor that you get from the page history when you compare two different edits. Cla68 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sorry about the wait, here's the diffs (in the same order as above): http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AHelen_Thomas&action=historysubmit&diff=378989239&oldid=378984172; http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=376875177; http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=377020482; http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=376874451; and the link for the reversion where his edit summary includes "I don't owe you an explanation other than what's already on talk. Please let editors who are doing actual work do their work" is http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Helen_Thomas&diff=cur&oldid=376860819. Are these what you were looking for? Thanks, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to this soon. Cla68 (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that you can remember none of this, but I trust this will adequately refresh your memory. In any case, after conferring with arbcom members about your behavior (which took some time, as you can see), per their request I am now formally notifying you that I expect you to stop following me to further articles, and to stop editing Leo Frank where, for example, you reverted me here. Interestingly, though in your edit summary you refer to yourself as having reverted to “SV’s version” that wasn’t really accurate, was it? You were in fact reverting to User:FatMargin's version who is… drum roll please… one of the many sockpuppets of gnetwerker.

I hope that’s all clear and satisfactory to you, and that we can both move on. Thanks again. IronDuke 01:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I just checked your talk page and remember some of it. I scolded you for violating WP:NPA and you took exception to it. I'll tell you this IronDuke, if you will follow Wikipedia's policies, including NPOV and NPA, then you shouldn't have to worry about me or anyone else getting on your case. You don't follow those policies, and me or someone else will be letting you know about it. Follow the rules and you get left alone to build the 'pedia. Do you understand? Cla68 ( talk) 01:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Apologies for the edit conflict. I top-posted a bit -- I think that makes the discussion clearer, but if you'd like to reorganize, please feel free. IronDuke 01:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

"You don't follow those policies, and me or someone else will be letting you know about it. Follow the rules and you get left alone to build the 'pedia. Do you understand?"

I won't reply to this just yet, as you haven't had a chance to read what I've written. I sincerely hope you will have a change in course (if not in heart) after doing so. If you continue to have a problem with this, please feel free to email arbcom about it. In the meantime, I'm expcting you to leave me alone. IronDuke 01:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I haven't been following you around. I do have some of WP's admin pages on my watchlist, such as ArbCom enforcement. If I see you brought to admin attention because there is a concern that you have violated a policy, I may add information about what I've observed of your past behavior. Again, if you follow the rules, you shouldn't have to worry about anything. I don't know if you know this, but the Israel/Palestine articles have, at least in the past, been one of the worst areas in Wikipedia for personal attacks, NPOV violations, edit warring, and similar behavior. That area has been a little better lately, in my opinion because of a lower tolerance for allowing that kind of behavior to go unanswered. I hope it stays that way. Cla68 ( talk) 01:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm a bit concerned that you haven't taken this notice on board. You are free to flout it, but my strong impression is that there will be consequences for you if you do -- again, I urge you to contact arbcom if you are in any doubt of this. Thanks again for your attention. IronDuke 01:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

What I can't understand about this request is that me and you haven't really interacted that much. Also, I didn't understand why you took it to a private conversation with ArbCom instead of pursuing normal dispute resolution. After taking a break and thinking about it, I think I understand where this is coming from. You're afraid that a banned user, with which you have a long-running personal dispute, will watch until you slip up somehow, then ask me to intervene. So, you're trying to head that off by "formally" asking me to not interact with you. Do I understand this right? Cla68 ( talk) 04:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, honestly, you seem to be closer to the right track now than at any other time that we’ve interacted, if perhaps not all the way there. I’m not sure what to say to your first point. I suppose it depends on your definition of the word “much.” I took your threat to monitor my activities, considering from whence it arose, very seriously. If you look back at what I posted above about the comments you made previously, I hope you can start to get some sense of why that is. I was obliged to contact arbcom privately because this issue involves RL identities. Going to some random noticeboard would have been impossible. I don’t have a “long-running dispute” with the user in question: he’s wikistalked me for years. Sometimes he ropes in credulous Wikipedians to help him with this project—really, it’s probably the cruelest part of what he does, making the lives of otherwise well-meaning Wikipedians difficult because they don’t realize who it is they’re helping. AGF, I could convince myself that this description applies at least in part to you. I hope that this all makes sense to you, and that you are able to move on without feeling ill-done by. Thanks. IronDuke 17:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Now, see, here's the problem with your whole approach here. Instead of confronting me with threats and bluster, why didn't you just explain the situation? You don't have to worry about me following you around and opposing you in content discussions. I don't do that. From what I've observed, however, is that you often seem too emotionally invested in some of the Israel-related topics you edit, which results in you getting into a battleground-type of approach with other editors instead of cooperating, collaborating, and compromising. I'm going to assume that after this break you have returned willing and able to follow all of WP's rules. Cla68 ( talk) 23:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Explain the situation? You refused to even say where it was you got the idea to pop up on my talk page. Given that it was at the behest of two banned users, I can see why. But if there was a breakdown in communication, it's clear that it began with you. I also find it odd that you attempt to upbraid me for violations of NPA when, if my source is correct, you cheerfully heaped scorn and vituperation on me off-wiki, comments that might have gotten you blocked had you posted them here. You write that I don't have to worry about you "following you around and opposing you in content discussions." I'll take you at your word (and for that to include all areas of WP, not merely content discussions) and will even go so far as to overlook your obviously incorrect assertion that you haven't been doing this. I see you want to save some face, and I'm happy to oblige you, so long as you do indeed keep clear of me. I won't respond here again on this point. Cheers. IronDuke 00:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You know, I've often thought that wikipedia needs an essay on not-so-passive-aggressive bullshit (WP:NSPABS). IronDuke, no sane adult could possibly read any of your screed on this page as anything other than arrogant offensiveness. So let's go through the original aggression:

1) "As you may have noticed, I have taken a break from editing pending resolution of your actions" So what you start with is an allegation that Charles is the cause of some pain to you and that there is some sort of investigation. No proof of said invesitgation, of course, just random mudslinging. And, of course, the "poor me, what a victim I am" campaign. 2) "Per discussion with arbcom members" Again with the random mudslinging. Name these phantom arbcom members, or crawl back into your hole. 3) Paraphrase: 'I demand that you promise to stop stalking me and I'll try to be nice to you' Seriously? What sort of idiot could possibly take that as a reasonable compromise? IronDuke, Charles wants you to be nicer to people and stop assuming bad faith. Heck, there's even a policy about that, isn't there? But, instead of taking that comment to heart, you turn up the WP:NSPABS all the way to eleven. Charles has authored many FAs, he's copy edited hundreds, if not thousands of articles, and aided countless editors in their improvement of the encyclopaedia. What have you done that gives you the right to malign him so? Read WP:AGF, internalise it. The fact that there are some people who don't want to do the right thing does not give you licence to join them. If you find it all too hard, find another hobby. Now go away and leave Charles to his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.134.227 ( talk) 02:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you, for your image alignment help, at Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 04:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

No problem. The article looks fair and neutral to me. Cla68 ( talk) 04:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68, thank you very very much for that comment! That is high praise coming from you - and I really appreciate your kind words very much! -- Cirt ( talk) 04:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. You made a comment on the peer review page of Matin Luther. I couldn't organize it as you said and couldn't you do it? TGilmour ( talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Vermouth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I added several alternate hooks. Thanks for the help. Cla68 ( talk) 04:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68, I see you're a veteran of the Climate Change arbitration, so I'm wondering if I could get your opinion on a related matter. This regards Lyndon LaRouche. By one account this movement's publications are "at the forefront of denying the reality of global warming". The articles featured in their two main magazines illustrate the movement's devotion to that topic. Executive Intelligence Review and 21st Century Science and Technology Some of their prominent views are covered at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Environment and energy. Apparently, their facts or theories have been repeated by more mainstream commentators like Rush Limbaugh. My question is whether you, Cla68, think the LaRouche bio and related articles would be covered by the Arbitration topic ban on "articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages" and "biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed"?   Will Beback  talk  10:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Stephen's and Collect's take on it is correct. Cla68 ( talk) 23:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I disagree and have filed an AE request to seek your compliance with the ArbCom's topic ban.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I have replied to you, at my user talkpage. Thank you, Cla68, for the polite manner in which you are conducting yourself in discussions with me. I really appreciate it. A lot. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 05:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68, a suggestion has been made at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#What_administrative_action_is_sought_here.3F that perhaps RfC/Us would be the way forward here. What are your thoughts? Would you co-certify if I raised an RfC/U on Cirt, based on the concerns I posted to their talk page yesterday, and similar cases? -- JN 466 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I would be willing to co-certify. Also, I'm preparing an RfC on the LaRouche articles, which, of course, will include comment on the recent enforcement request. Would you be willing and able to co-certify that one? Cla68 ( talk) 22:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes. -- JN 466 22:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Whatever specific help you need, just ask. I'll continue preparing the LaRouche RfC offline then post it in userspace shortly before it's final so you can add anything if desired. Cla68 ( talk) 02:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I presume this involves me. I'd like to ask permission in advance to quote the off-Wiki comments you've made about the LaRouche topic and involved editors. Likewise about Cirt for the other RfC. I believe you've both made extensive comments on WikipediaReview. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Since the question was intentionally ignored I presume there's no objections to including the WR discussions in any future RFCUs.

Cla68, if there are any significant disputes on the LaRouche articles then mediation would seem like the appropriate next step in dispute resolution. Shall I initiate a request?   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Will, I'm following the advice of one of the arbitrators who suggested an RfC. Hey, isn't it a Friday night of a holiday weekend in the US? What are you doing editing Wikipedia? It's a saturday morning here and the only reason I'm looking at this website from time to time is because it's raining outside. Last night I watched The King's Speech and I wholeheartedly recommend it if you haven't watched it yet. Cla68 ( talk) 04:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You mentioned here a LaRouche RFC. RfCs are applicable to articles, usually about specific content issues. If it's an RFCU, then I'd like to know what policies have been violated to merit one? If no policies have been violated then mediation would be better. Since you don't object, I assume that's fine with you and it'll save you the trouble of wasting your weekend. Since there hasn't been any previous mediation informal mediation through the MedCab would be the best place to start.   Will Beback  talk  04:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-05-28/LaRouche movement please add your signature to indicate your willingness to participate.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Will, you told me to do an RfC if there were any issues with your editing, so I'm following your advice also. Cla68 ( talk) 04:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

What issues are there with my editing?

Are you refusing to join in mediation?   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Nope, just following others' advice, including your own, to do an RfC to seek community input and insight into the issues surrounding that topic area. Cla68 ( talk) 05:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Again, what issues are there surrounding my editing of the LaRouche topic? How have you tried to resolve them?   Will Beback  talk  05:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello? You presented a bunch of material to the ArbCom a couple of months ago and they didn't find a problem. I hope you're not planning to regurgitate the same old evidence that has already been reviewed and dismissed. If the "community" who turns up ends up just being your pals from WR then an RfC won't provide much useful community input. So again, what policies or guidelines have been violated to merit an RFCU?   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I will assume that all parties involved in this dispute are watching this page. I have posted some comments and requested clarification and further information on the Mediation Cabal case page. If all those involved in this dispute (read - content dispute) could leave comments on the case page, linked above, that would be most helpful. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I've started a discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User:SlimVirgin.2FPoetgate Mindbunny ( talk) 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. I completely understand if you have no interest in discussing SlimVirgin and Jayjg. I've only recently turned over that rock, so it's probably quite a bit more eye-opening and novel to me than to you. But, I am curious about your perspective. To me, it points to deep, underlying problems in admin accountability. Double-standards, a lack of equality in content decisions, and so on. Do you have an interpretation of the whole thing and how it applies to issues of fairness? Again, if you want it to be water under the bridge, I understand. I won't ask you about it again. Mindbunny ( talk) 06:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

It's a history page telling a story of abuse that happened in the past, not an attack page. Mindbunny, dude, let this page alone. Binksternet ( talk) 06:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm really not quite sure what to do here. You commented in the WP:RSN section about the source on the protests in Ahwaz in the 2011 Iranian protests article. Since then, I have found quite a few other sources, such as Al Bawaba, Human Rights Watch, Los Angeles Times (falls under WP:NEWSBLOG). But Kurdo has been continually marginalizing the information, with summaries like "Al Bawaba is a self-publishing blog-like site with no editorial oversight, not a news agancy or newspaper . It doesn't meet the requirments of WP:RS", or "trimming down HRW statment, this is not Human Rights in Iran page, please mind WP:Undue" (in this case, specifically removing the information referring to excessive force, arrests of Arab people, and government censorship). Then there's how he's adding in specific words to try and make it seem to the reader that the sources still in the section are unreliable, such as making sure that Al Arabiya has "Saudi-owned pan-Arab" in front of it, specifying blog for Los Angeles Times (while technically correct, we usually don't specify it, since per WP:NEWSBLOG, the writers are still staff of the paper and are the same as any regular news report), adding that the journalist for the Los Angeles Times is "Lebanese-based".

I really don't know how to deal with this properly, because it is a content issue, so I can't really take it to ANI. You might also want to see this section made on my talk page. Silver seren ^C 05:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh, I just found a [ RFERL source, let's see what happens when I add it. Silver seren ^C 05:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll see what help I can give. Cla68 ( talk) 10:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've reverted your recent edits to Sea World as you have posted it on the wrong article. Feel free to add the content to SeaWorld or SeaWorld San Diego. Sea World (with two words) is an Australian marine animal theme park completely unrelated to those in America (branded SeaWorld, single word). Kind Regards Themeparkgc   Talk  23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but I'll also check to see if the Australian version has responded to The Cove controversy, as it has reverberated among marine parks throughout the world. Cla68 ( talk) 23:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply

OrangeMarlin deleted my comment on his talk page, so I figured I would put it here:

Cla68, OM is a deletionist. Deletionists aren't willing to cooperate to improve an article. Their thing is simply to delete anything they don't like and then to hide behind the rules, which they interpret very narrowly instead of as the broad guidelines that they are meant to be. Deletionists rarely have anything of value to contribute to the encyclopedia, and a great deal of useful information gets removed by them because it isn't properly or immediately documented. You shouldn't expect a reasonable response from this person. B724 ( talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

From what I've observed, there has been a few problems with some regular editors in some of the science and science-related topics, such as Intelligent Design, in that it seems they want to discredit any ideas that don't match what they see as the "mainstream science" stance on said topic. They appear to be afraid that if they don't discredit the ideas or theories that they regard as "fringe", then someone might accidentally accept those ideas as credible. Of course, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we are not supposed to care which side "wins", we just report what the sources are saying. So, if editors are deleting or reverting reliably-sourced information, and refusing to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise with other editors on the content in question, or engaging in bullying behavior, then there is a problem. I'll let you know if I do an editor behavior RfC on OrangeMarlin. Cla68 ( talk) 06:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I have to say, I think you are being too fair-minded. The deletionists and so-called skeptics ruined Wikipedia for me, and I no longer participate. There are dozens of them. I'm interested in metaphysical topics, so you can imagine what they did to my articles. (I did my very best to make the articles objective and factual, but they were never satisfied.) Despite the fact that huge swathes of the population believe in things like psychics and ESP, the skeptics allow very little information on those subjects to get through. The encyclopedia is heavily censored. And as you pointed out, their censorship extends to mainstream topics as well. They think they are being objective, but they aren't. My articles were attacked by atheists and Christians, both of whom find metaphysical topics to be threatening. They attack what they don't like, and then they justify it later. And amazingly, the administrators always back them up.

Good luck to you! B724 ( talk) 08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

What do you think about adding a summary style paragraph of relevant points from WP:ACTIVIST to Wikipedia:Wikibombing (SEO)? Viriditas ( talk) 03:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply

The two essays do appear to be related. When I have time I'll look at doing that or its fine if you or someone else would like to take a stab at it. Cla68 ( talk) 01:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Aren't they both related to WP:COI? Why is that a guideline and not a policy? Shouldn't the finer points of ACTIVIST and BOMB be part of COI? It seems to me that many of these essays are lost children in search of their parent policies and guidelines. Instead of wasting all this time with essays, shouldn't we be strengthening the COI guideline and turning it into policy? As I've said elsewhere, we should encourage people to disclose their COI at every level, to the point where they will willingly give it up in a welcoming atmosphere where it is acceptable. Viriditas ( talk) 04:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I encourage everyone to complete a marathon once as it is an incredible feeling of accomplishment.

Heh. Perhaps you should add "with your doctor's approval". It's probably not for everyone. Viriditas ( talk) 04:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments. Do you think it's ready to post? -- J N 466 12:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'm ready if you are. Cla68 ( talk) 12:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Okeydoke. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt. -- J N 466 12:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Not Sure where you are going with this. I have little doubt it will all true but is it stuff that needs to be said? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 02:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I would tend to agree. Either reword or remove it. Viriditas ( talk) 04:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Both Delicious Carbuncle and Jayen 466, the two primary whistleblowers in this episode, were bullied and hectored when they tried to pursue dispute resolution. I think something about it needs to be said in the RfC. Perhaps I'll take you two's advice and make it more generic instead of trying to name names. Cla68 ( talk) 05:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Isn't Delicious Carbuncle the same person who has written dozens of posts, and started at least six threads, about Cirt on Wikipedia Review? If so, he seems a bit obsessed.   Will Beback  talk  05:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Not helping Will, These are the exact type of post Cla68 was discussing in the RFC. We need to deescalate tensions here while the RFC proceeds. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 05:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Where has Cla68 discussed the off-Wiki harassment of Cirt by Delicious Carbuncle? Perhaps I missed it. As for deescalation, perhaps it's better to get all of this material out in the open. RfCs can cover all the involved people, including Cla68, Delicious Carbuncle, and you. Do you post to WR too?   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

No actually, I have a strong dislike of WR I find it toxic to collaborative editing. If you have evidence to add Will then add it in the appropriate forum. Your posting here fails to achieve anything but reinforces Cla68 perception of "unnecessary attacks, intimidation, bullying, and criticism" by Cirt's friends. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 14:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

If you'll check the links I posted in the RfC, you may see why Will has taken an interest in this discussion. Cla68 ( talk) 05:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)As part of your evidence against Cirt you pointed to this diff where you Scott Mac criticized Cirt's edit here. Unfortunately, as the article has been deleted, it's hard for us non-admins to how [in]appropriate his edit was. Would you be able to elaborate on the problem besides what you posted on Cirt's talk page? Thanks. Edit: I just realized that it wasn't you, and you don't have the requisite permissions to see the diff. Clearly, however, you were disturbed enough by the edit to bring it up at the RfC/U. Would you be able to elaborate at all on the situation and why you felt it was inappropriate? Not that I have anything against Scott (I don't know him at all), but the mere criticism of one's actions by another user doesn't really count as wrongdoing. Throwaway85 ( talk) 06:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

It was Scott MacDonald who had a problem with that edit. I was using the diff of Scott's comment to Cirt to illustrate when attention was called once again to Cirt's scientology-related edits to BLPs. Cla68 ( talk) 06:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

See here. I'll add this link to the RfC. Cla68 ( talk) 06:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

And this, this, and this. Cla68 ( talk) 06:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm seeing two things in those diffs: people making issues out of nothing (of *course* the message to scientology video should be here, it was one of the most notable things about Chanology), and Cirt apologizing for making mistakes going back over two years. I guarantee I've made more mistakes than that and apologized more times, and I'm not even that active. Also, none of it shone any light on the Meade Emory issue, except to include his apparently sincere apology for an apparently honest mistake and that the other editor was reported then blocked by another admin for vandalism. Now, granted, the thrust of some of his work is troubling. I think having an article like List of Scientologists is troubling, but that's only because I don't think it's notable in and of itself, but I'll leave that to the community to decide. As for BLP vios, well, there's a reason I stay away from that area. I find WP:V and WP:NPOV to often be at odds with WP:BLP, as we saw in the Chaka Khan case Scott linked to. I saw many reliable sources making a claim that she denied. In such a contentious situation, people are bound to disagree, but I can't fault him for going with what the majority of the sources said. I can see why you and others might be upset with him, but I also can't see a whole lot that he's done wrong out of malice. Throwaway85 ( talk) 07:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

When I spot-checked articles from the "List of Scientologists" last July, I found some that were four paragraphs in length, and two or three of the paragraphs were entirely about the person's involvement in Scientology. That's why the concern about what Cirt was doing came up in July of last year. So, it's not necessarily the specifics of Cirt's editing that was the problem, it was his focus on detailing so much Scientology stuff in BLP articles. I had thought that he had backed off in July, only to find in December that he was still active with that type of editing. Cla68 ( talk) 07:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that list has a bit of a creepy vibe, but I also think Scientology itself is pretty creepy. Still, besides having a bit of a POV bent, I can't really see where it breaks policy, which is the main issue. If the policies we've written are fine with having creepy lists like that, then we need to change them and not go hunting after editors who follow them. Does Cirt ride the line? Sure he does, but he seems to be fairly careful not to cross it and fixes things when he does. I just don't see how it warrants the massive rfcu with hundreds of diffs going back years, all covering minor infractions if that. Then again, it's a subject that reasonable people can disagree on, and I respect that you don't find his behaviour acceptable. Thanks for the diffs, at any rate. Throwaway85 ( talk) 08:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

[197] [198] When you accuse someone of something that serious and unethical you should be prepared to follow through. Please post an edit war notice at WP:EW. Otherwise I recommend that you retract your statements. Thanks for your prompt attention.   Will Beback  talk  11:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

That's a rather defensive response, Will. Please don't revert war. Talk pages are there for a reason. Please use them before unilaterally reverting another editor's edits. If you want me to say this on your user talk page, I can. Cla68 ( talk) 12:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll start an WP:EW thread myself, and you can post your evidence there. WP:ANEW#User:Will Beback reported by User:Cla68 (Result: )   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The reviewing admin found no violation. Please withdraw this allegation which has been proven incorrect.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist ( talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm trying hard not to overreact, but if this was anyone less well known they'd have been blocked long ago for the tirade-ish aspects of the ANI comments.

It's clear that a nerve was hit and he's really upset about it, and I am among those who are trying to calm the situation down without escalating it. Several other editors asked him to calm down as well. He's responded inconsistently with a mixture of ignored and rudely deleted comments.

There's a limit, though. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 06:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

One request to calm down from each editor should be enough. If he doesn't calm, then repeating it over and over will not work. Cla68 ( talk) 07:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

If he won't calm down, he won't calm down. If he won't calm down and disrupts ANI that badly, you get about 5-6 passes and then even Jimmy would get blocked briefly to stop the situation.

I don't know that the multiple warnings were good per se - but I'm not going to jump straight from "you need to stop" to "you're blocked", especially with someone we all know and respect, especially not when he's righteously angry about something (justified or not, overreacting or not). There's no good answer to this, but people can't blow up noticeboards disruptively like that. Jimmy or an Arbcom sitting member would get blocked for a bit more than this, on ANI or AN.

If there's a better way to do it, I'm all ears. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

There's a similar situation going on right now on someone else's user talk page. What should be done about it? Ignore? Enforce compliance with WP's policies? Tough situations, both. If blocking wasn't such a drama magnet and so much stress for the blocking administrator, I think that would be the way to go in both situations. The fault is Wikipedia's administrative structure, not yours. Cla68 ( talk) 07:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I saw that other one start, and I am not up to engaging, though someone should probably noticeboard it. I am sympathetic to OrangeMarlin's anger and frustration, but those are some really right nasty personal attacks, and that's not OK. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I understand. I guess I could get up on my soapbox about how Wikipedia's current structure doesn't give adequate institutional support to its admins, I'm sure you've heard it all before. Cla68 ( talk) 07:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Anyway, I think one of the situations has calmed. Cla68 ( talk) 07:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I find it hard to believe that more structure would be even more time-consuming than the status quo. Free form discussions on an 18-member are incredibly wasteful, and I suspect practically anything else would be more efficient. Whether breaking the committee into subgroups, or electing an internal task master—anything so that every thread is not meandering stream of consciousness.

Thank you for your thoughts; I think you are mostly spot-on. Cool Hand Luke 01:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. There are several different ways you all could approach it. I'm not a professional mediator, moderator, or project manager, but I think the approaches such professions take to formalize and structure discussion processes for decision-making might offer something of value to the way you all do things. Cla68 ( talk) 01:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

ArbCom seems to be starting another one of their hallmark "omnibus" cases about "Blp Feuding", whatever that is. I am not going to get involved, and hope you won't either. The Cirt-Jayen466 case seems focused and appropriate. You should present your evidence of inappropriate, intimidating comments there. Some of the diffs you cited appear to have crossed the line. I recognize we disagreed about the closure of the RFC. You will note that I made exactly one action, and then left it for others to determine what to do. I don't think my actions need further discussion because it is finished business. While I don't agree with what you did, I have no intention to complain about it, because things are moving along well enough, closed or unclosed. Kind regards, Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

You made pejorative comments about the certifiers and endorsers of the RfC, and I was one of them. Cla68 ( talk) 22:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I did not do so. You appear to be reacting to a perceived insult that was not intended. Would you like to discuss this further? Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply

As the motions/cases have been presented, the Cirt-Jayen case is independent of all issues such as this, the motion(b) is where any side issues such as this belong. The Cirt-Jayen motion(a) is focused specifically on those two users edit contributions and the dispute between them. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is arduous and tortuous enough as it is without editors needlessly attacking those engaged in the process making it more so. Cla68 ( talk) 00:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Have you looked in the mirror lately? A lot of things, such as attacks, are in the eye of the beholder. There are two choices: (1) discuss any disagreements and try to resolve them, (2) obtain missile lock on the editor who you perceive to be the source of some umbrage, and pursue them relentlessly until you get what you want. I recommend option (1). You are about to be put under a lot of scrutiny, again, and in spite of a minor recent disagreement, I rather like your contributions. I may not be in the top 90% when it comes to diplomacy, but it was not my intention to make perjorative comments about you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Your negative comments when you attempted to unilaterally close that RfC aren't the only issues. Do you know how much time it takes to put something like that RfC together? Because of WP's structure, there isn't an easy way to advertise an RfC to get maximum participation. You have to let it sit and wait for editors to find it. That's another reason why RfCs are usually allowed to run for at least 30 days. So, for you to close it like that was really a slap in the face. How many more editors have participated since you tried to close it, five or six, and how many more have changed their minds after additional evidence was presented, two or three? Has the ArbCom case even opened yet? Not to mention, have you interefered in the past when dispute resolution was attempted with Cirt? It should be possible for Wikipedia to actually establish and enforce a standard of behavior in which editors stop pursuing activist agendas and work with each other, but it will only happen when everyone, including admins of all people, start following the rules consistently and fairly. Cla68 ( talk) 01:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply

My closure summarized the state of opinions at the time. That was not my opinion; it was a summary of what the participants had said. The matter has moved to arbitration and all your hard work to gather evidence will be utilized. Did you know that I helped created the template system that is currently in use to advertise RFCs? [199] I am keenly aware of the problem of how to advertise them, and have done everything I could think of to help make it better. Jehochman ^Talk 11:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep off my user talk page. If you continue to harass me I will ask for intervention against you. Prioryman ( talk) 07:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

User clearly doesn't want to hash it out on his talk page, Cla68, and it's causing more heat than light.

I suggest that you instead bring this up in the upcoming Cirt-JN466 case, which will very likely consider these issues. Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I will. One problem I have with this editor is that he often engages in bollocking other editors he disagrees with in personal terms, amid other things he does, like edit warring to put thinly sourced negative information in the BLPs of people he also apparently disagrees with, but he can't take it when he gets called on it. Cla68 ( talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 23:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68, the case has been open for nine days. You've hinted that you're going to post evidence against me, but you have not presented any of it yet. Are you planning to do so still, and if so when can I expect to see it? Since you've been planning this case for months now I expect you have the bulk of it already prepared. I hope it isn't your intention to surprise me with it just before a deadline. It would be more helpful to post what you have so far and edit it later, or send me a copy if you prefer.   Will Beback  talk  06:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Wow, I didn't know about this. Big implications for Sarah Palin and related. I remember your insistence that articles about her simply had to include implications that she was linked to the 2011 Tucson shooting. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 08:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Aren't you the editor who created articles on politician's mistresses? If you like we can ask to have you added as a party.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Will, you owe Kelly 10 cents. Cla68 ( talk) 22:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla, are you going to post evidence about me, and if so when?   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello Cla68. As the clerk for the Cirt/Jayen466 case, I have removed the "Others" part of your evidence section for this case, as it lies outside of the defined scope for the case. The Cirt/Jayen466 case, as determined by the Arbitration Committee, is to focus only on the conduct of those two editors. While some contextual information may be appropriate, as per my comments to Tryptofish on the evidence talk page, however evidence presented with the intention of seeking sanctions for other editors is not appropriate. If you believe this is a matter of concern, I would encourage you to file your evidence in the related "Manipulation of BLPs" case (linked to in the section above) or open a request for a new case at WP:A/R/C. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Please self-revert the recent header "Prioryman" that you just added to he evidence page of this ArbCom case and seek clarification from Hersfold or AlexandrDmitri. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 10:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In these circumstances, before even posting a header you should seek clarification. Please do so and self-revert in the meantime. If you do not respond to these messages, that might not help you at a future time. Please reconsider. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 11:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Again with the threats. I should charge every editor a dime for making an explicit threat and a nickel for an implied one on my talk page. I think I could probably retire early. Cla68 ( talk) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What threats? You are just being advised to exercise caution. So if doubt, ask somebody. For example Cool hand Luke. It's as simple as that. Mathsci ( talk) 13:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Cla, I think that the kind of evidence you appear to be preparing is, indeed, something that I would like to see come before ArbCom. However, given what I can make out of the confusing messages about the scopes of the cases, my advice (not that you asked for it) would be to present only evidence about Cirt or Jayen at that case, and instead, present the evidence about everyone else at the BLP Manipulation case. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

(reply to note on my talk page) That's odd; that doesn't seem to be in keeping with the motion that was passed. I've gotten in touch with an arbitrator (Cavalry) about this, and he and I agree that CHL probably meant the related BLP case. The scope statement the Committee passed was fairly clear that the Cirt/Jayen case was only to focus on the actions of those two users, and that anything else should go in the BLP case. Sorry for the confusion, I didn't realize that you'd been told otherwise before. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 20:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

(to others) Guys, to keep drama and other issues down, please let the clerks handle clerk stuff. As you know, Arbitration is a very high-tension environment, so it helps to have this stuff come from one source and not from several, most of which are involved in the dispute as well. I appreciate the help, but thanks for understanding. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 20:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Please remove this page. WP:UP#POLEMIC.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If I don't use that diff in the ongoing ArbCom case, I'll remove your name. In the meantime, perhaps it would be a good idea if you stopped threatening other editors? Cla68 ( talk) 23:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll do that as soon as you stop beating your wife. ;)   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Why are you acting so hatefully toward me? Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Would you like to answer this question, or do you feel that I am an unperson? Jehochman ^Talk 05:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I guess my later question is answered. We're done here, and it is a very sad day. Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

User:Cla68/threat charges, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/threat charges and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/threat charges during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  07:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

It would probably be best if you don't use the unauthorized emails as evidence, and certainly not as carelessly as you have to date. Currently, you cite that incomplete and unauthorized record to claim that a user "apparently" lied to a third party who hasn't even complained about the alleged lie. This isn't helpful, and is a bit ironic in a BLP case. Please take it down immediately.

More generally, ArbCom has access to and familiarity with the complete unedited archive. It's unclear how commentary on a partial record would help clarify any editing issue with Prioryman. For example, when you opine that Prioryman should have been reminded to obey previous restrictions, we happen know that he was reminded and agreed to abide with existing restrictions.

If you believe he has violated those restrictions, it would be more useful to identify those violations. If your grievance is actually with ArbCom, please take it up with ArbCom rather than Prioryman.

Note that I am only speaking for myself here. ArbCom as a whole might formulate a general practice regarding unauthorized and leaked email evidence. Cool Hand Luke 17:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll amend the evidence. It's true that I'm extremely irritated with ArbCom for enabling a repeat offender like that. You all are supposed to be correcting the behavior of problematic editors and activists, not facilitating their efforts. Not only did the Committee enable this guy's editing, you kept it a secret from the community his abuse of Right to Vanish. Cla68 ( talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I've removed some of your evidence. I'd like it to be trimmed more, but I'll leave that for you to consider. This case isnt about RtV (That would be an interesting rfc/rfar, ..!) so the main issue wrt Prioryman is any involvement in BLPs and related policies/essays, etc. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, Cla68. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manipulation of BLPs Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 618 words and 37 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT^{( talk)} 04:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

やっぱり, ちきしょう! Cla68 ( talk) 06:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

btw, this doesnt suggest what you have put in the evidence. The blocking checkuser/admin may have just noticed it was not blocked. I recommend talking asking Avi. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If you are serious about this offer will you withdraw your evidence? Prioryman ( talk) 07:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll modify it to note what you said, then post a motion on the workshop requesting that no additional sanctions be imposed. Cla68 ( talk) 12:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Personal note this time, since the bot won't talk to you again about this case; the bot reports that you have 74 diffs in your evidence section in the BLP case; the limit is 50, so if you could shorten that down, it would be appreciated. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 05:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think all the diffs are equally important, so please flip a coin and remove whichever ones you need to get it under the limit. Cheers. Cla68 ( talk) 10:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I suggest removing them all, as suitable sanction for this editor's uncooperative behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Is this permission for me to remove your diffs about me? ;-) Prioryman ( talk) 23:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Which case are we talking about here? I thought Hersfold was clerk for the Jayen/Cirt case. I don't think anyone but a clerk should touch my evidence sections. Cla68 ( talk) 23:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You're right that Hersfold is the clerk in Jayen/Cirt. However, he runs a bot on all cases (as I understand it) to police evidence length. I presume he is notifying you here in a personal capacity ("personal note this time") rather than as a clerk. You're on 71 diffs now, btw. Prioryman ( talk) 00:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I have removed edits to your subpage by an ipsock of ArbCom banned/community banned editor Mikemikev ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Although I haven't checked, he probably took these from edits by me. For details of socking by Mikemikev, see for example Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive as well as the two sockpuppet category pages. The whole range of vodafone IPs was blocked by an arbitrator for three months earlier in the year because of his socking. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Incidentally if this is a joke page and you have banned users editing it, might it be an idea not to link it to an ArbCom evidence page? That's how I found it (it's not on my watchlist, since it's a joke page). Thanks again, Mathsci ( talk) 08:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your concern, but my sub-page is on my watchlist. If it wasn't the banned user who said those things, then what's the problem with them being listed there? I found those quotes to be good examples of implied and explicit threats. If you aren't sure that they are yours, then what's the problem with me adding them back? Cla68 ( talk) 12:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Having checked my emails from arbitrators and done a careful analysis of all the edits in the IP range, previously blocked for 3 months by Shell Kinney, it seems that the first edit was made by puppetmaster A.K.Nole ( talk · contribs) and not by Mikemikev ( talk · contribs). Sorry about that inaccuracy. I have mentioned the link you made to your subpage from an ArbCom page to an ArbCom clerk. At the moment I am trying to clarify with checkusers on ArbCom the precise division of ipsocks between A.K.Nole and Mikemikev. The edit to your subpage is included in that discussion. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 17:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Since you seem unwilling to talk to me, which is odd given that you continue talking about me, I have left formal questions for you here. Please answer them. Jehochman ^Talk 15:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Moot. I removed the questions as they have no longer helping to resolve anything. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

First, I have removed the last sentence about Jehochman from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence, because it was frivolous. Second, it is my view that the preceding paragraph is inaccurate, because Jehochman's closing comments at the RFC does not support your allegations. I will await your view on this issue over the next 24 hours; if you have not responded, I will summarily redact your evidence, because unfounded submissions are not accepted, and because arbitration is not a forum for slandering one's fellow editors. Thank you, AGK [ • 13:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

AGK, when someone is in the middle of posting evidence in a case, perhaps you should let them finish it before undertaking any action that might not be helpful in doing so. Cla68 ( talk) 14:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I understand that your evidence may not have been complete, and I note that you have since amended it. However, only submissions that are finalised and have substantiation are acceptable on the evidence page. If you were in the middle of writing evidence, I should not have allowed discreditable evidence to stand and "let you finish it"; instead, you ought to have waited. I note that you have removed all submissions relating to Jehochman, which resolves the initial complaint. Thank you, AGK [ • 10:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68 and I have not been very often on the same side of an argument. However, the requirement that only finalised evidence can go onto the Evidence page of an ArbCom case seems to be a recent invention, and one that has been communicated so badly that I read about this for the very first time here. This is very much not the way a Wiki works - see m:Eventualism. I can see where you are coming from, but you are coming alone and without widely established consensus. Please follow the principle of least surprise in situations like this. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 11:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm wondering the same, AGK. I've been in several ArbCom cases, and the evidence never had to be "complete" before posting. We always had latitude to edit in place. When did this change, and where is the notice? I see no such information on the editnotice of the evidence page; surely this should be modified if no one is to be allowed to enter their evidence in stages. Also, the Guidelines for presenting evidence and arguments fails to mention this new requirement. Is it possible you misspoke? KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 14:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Unsubstantiated mud-slinging—which, forgive me, Cla68's evidence was—has never been acceptable, and I have seen this enforced by the clerks in the past, usually on the workshop page but also in the evidence phase. Admittedly, evidence has never had to be completed before submission, but it must not be unsubstantiated and must have a clear basis before it can be accepted. It is not permissible to write up an accusation, and say "But I don't have to give any diffs for that, because I'm not finished". I am happy to refer this to the arbitrators for clarification, but frankly I would have thought this kind of thing would be rather obvious, especially to experienced contributors. I'm watching this page, and will see any reply. Regards, AGK [ • 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68 and I seem to have worked out our differences. This issue not worth any further discord. Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

(outdent) Then I was correct; you accidentally misspoke when you said "only submissions that are finalised... are acceptable" - no new rule has been enacted. No worries, accidents of phrasing happen. Thanks for clarifying and correcting your error. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

It is not permissible to write up an accusation, and say "But I don't have to give any diffs for that, because I'm not finished". Unless you're an arbitrator yourself, in which case this doesn't apply at all, even well after you're finished. want the diffs? Just trying to provide a helpful clarification. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Please put back the evidence you posted against me. We should deal with it finally. In the alternative you could post a statement that you no longer have any dispute with me. Now that we have come this far down the path, we should finish it one way or the other. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

No. In the future, please be careful about undertaking any actions which might disrupt the dispute resolution process that any editors are engaged in. The process is painful enough already as is. I'll post this comment on your userpage to ensure that I've filled the square. Cla68 ( talk) 22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Understood. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the club! I switched to Vibram FiveFingers last year after having knee trouble, and it's done wonders (also been taking glucosamine supplements). Kelly ^hi! 17:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I use Vibrams also. I wish that I had switched years ago. My arches and lower legs are still a little sore after each run, so I don't do it on consecutive days. In the intervening days I do something non-impact, such as the eliptical machine or swimming. Did your running speed improve after making the switch? Cla68 ( talk) 22:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Absolutely...though I noticed an improvement in endurance first. Yeah, I still remember that calf pain after first switching...I way overdid it at first because it felt so good. Kelly ^hi! 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I've noticed that my respiration and heart rate return to normal much quicker after a run in the vibrams. Other people warned me not to allow how great it feels to make me push myself too fast, so I've been able to avoid that so far. It has really helped bring back the thrill of running. Cla68 ( talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Vitamin D can also work. After I started to take 5,000 IU/day a few years ago I made a lot of progress. I have now increased the dose, such that the total intake is about 10,000 IU/day from supplements plus vitamin D production in the skin. I explain here the rationale for this dose. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are about be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be reader by the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors, as well as refrain from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour within the comments section. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Please email me about a topic that, judging from your posts, is of concern to you: encyclogalactica@aol.com Thank you for your time. Killer440 ( talk) 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

To all interested parties, I have started a draft editor conduct RfC on Will Beback here. If interested, please help add examples of behavior you feel should be addressed. Cla68 ( talk) 00:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Canvassing?

Please note this part of the proposed MBLP ArbCom decision:

• If these parties are before us once again, I anticipate having little patience for any unsupported case requests or allegations, but I also anticipate that in any future case brought based on editing after this one closes, the evidence and issues will be more focused and we will be able to hone in on any problematic user conduct that may continue.

I trust that you will not be adding any unsupported allegations.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think that concerns should be addressed to Will before starting the RFC, possibly by you Cla68, and a totally uninvolved editor, perhaps Mastcell. If those discusions fail to resolve concerns, you can start the RFC. Will, have you considered my advice about Tim Cook? Jehochman ^Talk 05:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Me and several other editors have tried dispute resolution with Will in the past, including asking him to take a break from the LaRouche topic after it became evident that he was trying the patience of the regulars at the BLP Noticeboard [200]. The inappropriate questioning of editors about their religious beliefs during the Cirt RfC further reinforced my opinion that community comment is the next step to address the behavior in question. Cla68 ( talk) 05:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't consider being ask to leave Wikipedia a real form of dispute resolution. To Jehochman - could you point out which advice that was - so much has been written in the past week that I may have missed it.   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

And, to the extent that Cla68's concerns are with the LaRouche articles, I'd note that he ignored requests to join mediation.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

That's not what happened Will. That episode will be included in the RfC. Self-servingly distorting events is not helpful. Cla68 ( talk) 05:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm speaking of this: [201] How is it a distortion to say that you would not join mediation?   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Don't worry, it will be covered in the RfC. Cla68 ( talk) 06:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68, do you think it's appropriate for someone who is either hiding their WP username, or is evading a block, to add evidence to an RFCU? It's on your user page so you can control who edits there.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Diffs? Jehochman ^Talk 05:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

[202]   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Linking to this account is just plain insulting and may show the mindset of the editor. [203]   Will Beback  talk  06:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't want to see potentially serious matters undermined by anybody playing games. I will make sure that editor doesn't disrupt this process again. (Cla68, pipe up if you feel that I am getting in the way.) Jehochman ^Talk 06:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I wasn't sure if "Will Bareback" was an actual past account of Will's or not, so I was going to ask him about it before posting the final RfC. The other edits the IP has made appear to be helpful, so I don't have a problem with the IP helping out. Will, do you think one possible reason someone may be using an IP is to avoid being the recipient of threatening behavior, as occurred today to Keithbob? Cla68 ( talk) 07:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I think it is inconsistent with dispute resolution standards. Logging out to avoid scrutiny is also a violation of WP:SOCK. If you are endorsing and allowing the use of socks in an RFCU then I would have to complain about that. If you are interested in resolving a dispute rather than creating a new one, then you'll do the right thing.   Will Beback  talk  08:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Whatever the merits, it is not allowed to log out to avoid scrutiny. If somebody is fearful of retaliation, they can email content to me, or possibly others, who will consider posting it. I would only do this for an editor in good standing, and for content that is (a) relevant, and (b) based upon verifiable evidence. I would post the content with a note that somebody in good standing had sent it to me, and that I accept responsibility for posting it. Cla68, may we assume that any content posted thus far by the IP has been reviewed and adopted as if posted by you? (If anything doesn't meet your standards, please remove it.) Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68, I see you have recruited Keithbob to endorse your RfCU. However I think that goes beyond what is allowed by the rules. The two people endorsing an RFC/U need to have both tried to resolve the same dispute. You two seem to be adding evidence about entirely separate disputes.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68, I am willing to make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute, and if that fails I could endorse the RfC. Will, how do you feel about the allegations shaping up? Do you hold that your editing has been perfect, or are you willing to concede that some has been sub-optimal and you'd consider making necessary changes to your editing style? Feel free to pick and choose the criticisms you think are valid and not valid. We can continue this discussion at any convenient venue. Jehochman ^Talk 02:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Let me ask this: what is "the dispute"? Not a list of every bad edit I've ever made, but the singular dispute that Cla68 wants to resolve.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, perhaps you should ask Sarah Palin, given that you pressed hard to give her responsibility for the 2011 Tucson shooting] in Public image of Sarah Palin and elsewhere. Kelly ^hi! 03:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Jehochman, I initiated this RfC based on my own, limited view of Will's editing behavior. As I peruse his editing history, and other editors like Keithrob add their own observations, a pattern may develop, or it may not. Therefore, it's premature to ask Will if he is willing and able to change. I'm conflicted about continuing to develop the RfC on-wiki. On one hand it allows other editors to chip in and help, and it makes it easy to wikify it as it goes along. On the other hand, it will take awhile to complete. I can take it offline and finish it there before posting if that's more desirable. Cla68 ( talk) 03:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

RFC/Us exist to resolve a dispute. They do not exist to provide a forum for general criticism of an editor. Again, what is the dispute?   Will Beback  talk  03:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Years ago, in response to a BLP consensus at Talk:John Edwards, I wrote John Edwards extramarital affair - an article that is even now basically the same the version I wrote years ago,. I've tried hard to promote neutrality in political articles - I was the one who proposed community probation and more community input and admin involvement on articles related to Sarah Palin - and helped point out admin misconduct at the ArbCom Sarah Palin wheel war case...in which the involved admins got a wrist-slap at the time but were eventually de-sysopped and banned.

Around the time of the 2011 Tucson shooting, Will Beback started pushing negative information into Palin articles. I had been involved with the Palin articles for a couple of years - Will Beback went to WP:ANI and portrayed my long involvement with the articles at WP:COI, though I had never made any puffery edits to the articles involved. As a result, I abandoned involvement with political articles Kelly ^hi! 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

This is the kind of pattern I'm talking about. Kelly, your input in the RfC, if willing, is welcome. Cla68 ( talk) 04:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Kelly please provide a link for that ANI. Was it this one [204] (section headed "Biased editing concerns" et seq.), from January 2011, where WB (1) offered numerous diffs as evidence of your allegedly biased editing in Palin articles and (2) contrasted the 3,700 word article on John Edwards's extramarital affair (an article to which you were a "prolific contributor," WB said) with your apparent view, according to WB, that 160 words on the association of Palin's rhetoric to the Tucson shooting was too much weight, etc.? I note you say that as a result of the ANI you abandoned involvement with political articles. Perhaps the ANI you refer to was some considerable time after January. You were still involved with Sarah Palin pages in June 2011. Writegeist ( talk) 06:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68, again I remind you that RFC/Us exist to settle disputes. There is no current dispute at Sarah Pailin, at least that I'm involved in.   Will Beback  talk  07:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

• All, I appreciate the inputs so far. I'm going to take the RfC offline for awhile and continue working on it. I'll post it again in my userspace when it's almost completed, or from time to time when it needs to be wikified. If anyone has any more inputs during that time, just post them to that page in my userspace or email me. Cla68 ( talk) 22:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Do what you will, but please keep in mind that both certifiers need to have sought resolution of the same active dispute, and that's what the RFC should focus on, not every bad edit I've ever made.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Please see the discussion on my talk page before it is disappeared. 24.18.132.102 ( talk) 09:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

As I assume that you've seen this, why do you suppose Jehochman deleted my question? 24.18.132.102 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC). reply

I don't see any need for me to get involved in that. Cla68 ( talk) 10:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Spoken like a true Wikipedian.

You purport to bravely address problems, but where they don't fit your political agenda (e.g. McGomi) you're no different than those you challenge. 24.18.132.102 ( talk) 10:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

'True' Wikipedians have political agendas? That's news to me. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks much, Cla68, for responding to NW on my talk page. What was so odd about it is that the answers to those questions are well known. He need only have followed a couple of the threads that he referred to. Or asked his buddies. It, frankly, felt like yet one more instance of intimidation and harassment, especially since he's the Admin who banned Olive. I can't believe how much I've been persecuted for COI, including by Will Beback. But my editing and behavior has always been compliant. I've never been blocked, never received a warning from an Admin on my Talk page. Arbcom didn't find any facts against me last year, even though Will Beback presented diffs going all the way back to 2006, when I first arrived. I was banned on one occasion at WP:AE by Future Perfect for two months, and how many diffs did he present as evidence? Zero. I still don't know why I was banned. I'm glad you and JN and others have the courage to take on powerful factions and expose them. TimidGuy ( talk) 09:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Since the TM topic area was handled by ArbCom, you don't need to go through ANI or a similar admin forum if you encounter more inappropriate questioning such as what took place today. If it happens again, don't respond, just immediately notify ArbCom. Cla68 ( talk) 09:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Good suggestion. TimidGuy ( talk) 09:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that the mystery RfC is about a dispute over the LaRouche articles, and that Keithbob has made a significant effort to resolve that dispute?   Will Beback  talk  04:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Don't you do it either. [205] Wait for the discussion to end and see what the conclusion is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

There's no reason a civil and rational disagreement about content has to cause any animosity between us, and I'll do what I can to see it doesn't. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if you noticed my question to you on my talkpage. If you wish to follow up on the issue you raised, please reply there at your convenience. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Very concisely put. No chance you have any thoughts on how to better handle matters like this in the future? NW ( Talk) 03:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I have plenty of ideas about how to make it easier for admins to enforce the rules and to do so more consistently. I probably should write it up sometime in an essay or general RfC. Is there currently an "admin guidebook" out there anywhere I could look at to see the current state of guidance given to Wikipedia admins? Cla68 ( talk) 07:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC) reply

This is the admin handbook given out for admins who want to undertake civility blocks. More generally, the New admin school is probably the closest thing you are looking for, but it's incomplete in many respects. There is general reading list for administrators which points to the list of policies to know, but there is no fully-fleshed out "best practices" page. There are also scattered pages throughout Wikipedia that give useful and generally-followed advice, such as the ones listed here for sockpuppetry or here for copyright, but they aren't systematically organized in any meaningful way. NW ( Talk) 12:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I will read through them. What I'd really like to develop are if/then checklists for different but common situations which admins could follow. Cla68 ( talk) 13:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC) reply

A single revert is not revert warring. Where did you get that idea? have you never heard of WP:BRD?   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC) reply

[206] Please don't revert war at the LaRouche movement article, especially when there is no consensus on the talk page to remove the material. Hipocrite ( talk) 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Per the BLP Noticeboard, there is sufficient concern over the nature of the content to warrant its removal under BLP policy. I believe you have revert warred to try to keep the material in the article. Cla68 ( talk) 01:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Cla68, please try harder so assume good faith. Your behavior in this recent LaRouche hoopla demonstrates (IMHO) your failure at times to assume good faith. This recent edit of yours seems to be an excellent example. [207] I believe that your failure in assuming that your fellow Wikipedians are sincerely trying to improve the Encyclopedia is what lead to your restrictions in the CS area of the project. If you were able to better assume good faith in others it will likely make your own experience here more pleasant but perhaps more importantly, it will make editing here more pleasant for others. Thank you, Bill Huffman ( talk) 17:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Refusing to discuss edits while at the same time claiming there's consensus to make them is unproductive and uncollegial. It's essentially bullying. If you don't want to be part of the solution then please don't be part of the problem either.   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Will, you appear to be trying to use delaying tactics, in addition to revert warring, ever since the RfC completed. When there is consensus to do something in an article, it isn't helpful to use various tactics, such as revert warring and accusations, to try to keep it from happening. Cla68 ( talk) 02:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

It's called "discussion". It's how Wikipedia works.   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

So why rush to a user's talk page to try to quash discussion, instead of simply stating you argument on the article talk page? Kelly ^hi! 03:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Just the opposite - I'd like Cla68 to engage in discussion rather than just making pronouncements.   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I guess we all find it unpleasant when someone says something we don't agree with. Remember, however, "We are usually convinced more easily by reasons we have found ourselves than by those which have occurred to others." - Blaise Pascal. Cla68 ( talk) 06:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

You say:

Wikipedia needs more "normal" people as participants. By "normal", I mean people who simply edit Wikipedia as a casual hobby, maybe spending an hour or two on it each week gradually helping build articles that interest them, as opposed to the current situation where about 1,000 regular editors are obsessively doing everything. Casual editors just don't have any patience for the kind of treatment they get when they try to deal with someone in the ID, science, anti-cult, pikachu, or whatever cabal. I don't blame them at all.

I think most editors active within a month are normal hobbyists in this sense. For precisely this reason, they are no help with wiki-controversies. They spend a few hours tending to their sport, or their TV show, or whatever interests them. Why would they wander into ANI to participate in passive-aggressive clean-language flame wars, or wander into hot topics where partisans are liable to drag them into other forums and perhaps even invade the quiet articles where our hobbyists dwell.

There are a lot of these people, but they don't engage in the drama, nor would they be effective at it if they did, due to time constraints. Who can blame them? Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your opinion. I can speak from my own experience. After editing Wikipedia casually for a couple of months, I wandered over to an article that I hadn't looked at before and which I can't mention. After my attempted edits were quickly reverted, I was treated rather rudely on the talk page. I was really surprised, because I hadn't witnessed that type of behavior in Wikipedia up to that point. Then, you know what happened a year or so later when I was following links (starting in Wikipedia) and stumbled onto a thread on Wikipedia Review, a site I hadn't visited before, about a certain BLP article. I then went and tried to make a few edits to that article. I'm still feeling the repercussions of what happened next. Although I stuck around, I can't imagine that many other people would put up with that time-consuming nonsense that I've elected to be part of.

What about an editor who edits their favorite TV show until an activist editor shows up, who also happens to be a long-time, established Wikipedia editor, perhaps an admin? Perhaps the new editor to the article is in love with one of the actors in the show, or perhaps the show covered a controversial topic, such as alternative medicine, or a political candidate, and the editor wants to make sure the "truth", no matter what, is reflected in the article. If the regular editor gets tired of being pushed around by the established editor, and attempts to utilize the dispute resolution process, several friends of the established editor will show up and, in an ad hominem fashion, highlight every little thing the casual editor has done wrong. The casual editor will, of course, be taken aback at the unexpectedly hostile treatment. You think this doesn't happen that often? I know it happens, because some editors who this has happened to have emailed me to tell me about it and explain that it is one of the reasons they never became very active in Wikipedia, or stopped being active.

Wikipedia's culture needs to be changed. It needs to stop tolerating bullying, game-playing, and activist editing. It needs to implement an orderly, efficient, consistent, and effective editor-behavior management system. Cla68 ( talk) 05:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

One other thing, if there were more casual editors in Wikipedia, it would help blunt the tactics used by activist cabals. When a casual editor stumbles onto a controversial topic, or an argument at ANI, reads the thread, and gives and opinion, it just might be the vote which breaks the impasse and gets a decision made. Otherwise, it's the same old regular editors arguing with each other endlessly with the goal of maintaining the status quo so their editing agenda can continue unmolested. As I said in the ACTIVIST essay, activist editors don't want random editors coming by "their" articles and trying to make any changes or voting in content RfCs. More, as in thousands, of casual editors would help keep small groups of editors from taking over topics and bullying other editors. Cla68 ( talk) 05:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

The problem is that the casual and quiet type of editors are those most likely to completely quit or leave one of the all too common wiki fights because they're here just to have fun. Whereas those who are in cabals or pushing their view will stick it out because they have an agenda--this type of editor has way too much influence on wiki and is a major reason why wiki is broken. I recently saw a comment about an RFC on the RFA process, but that RFC misses the point. It's not just RFA that's broken, the whole system is broken and needs a major overhaul. PumpkinSky talk 10:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree. Fixing the RfA system is addressing a symptom, not the underlying problem. Editing Wikipedia in areas in which established editors have taken over isn't fun for casual editors. Cla68 ( talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I've copied my post and yours to Wikipedia_talk:RfA_reform_2011#It is the system not just RFA. PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi! I rewrote the site layout section. It would be grateful if you could check and correct my English. Thank you. Oda Mari ( talk) 15:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Done. Cla68 ( talk) 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. Happy editing! Oda Mari ( talk) 04:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Your questions about Sue Gardner's evaluation are better placed to members of the HR-Committee of the board, who can give you details.

I can assure you that you will be sorely disappointed though. Your usual hostility hinges on an assumption that we aren't doing things in the right way, when we are. There is a written evaluation, it does take into account quantifiable goals as well as other metrics.

I'd like to suggest that rather than going around blustering with a chip on your shoulder, you drop the attitude and volunteer to actually help. Your snide tone is useless.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Well looking at Cla68's contributions, he/she does seem to spend a lot of time helping the project by largely actually editing content. Have you considered the possibility that your arrogance, as exampled by this post, might actually contribute to people feeling the need to follow Wikipedia Review?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Jimbo, I think my tone with my questions was fine. Here's the thing, it shouldn't be hard for me to find the Foundation's annual goals and performance metrics. Or, it shouldn't be difficult for you to link to them if asked. You are a member of the board, so share equal responsibility with the rest of the board for answering questions like that, because it is your job to do so. When I see Sue Gardner, in a formal presentation, identify several new problems that aren't listed in the Foundation's five-year plan, then I expect to see the Foundation's action plan to address the problems publicly posted. I still haven't found it yet. If it isn't, I assume you, of all people, being heavily involved in the Foundation's public face, would be urging the Foundation to get the plan posted, and soon. Please, get busy doing your job, ALL your job, and I'll keep busy, which I have been doing all along, trying to build a credible 'pedia (have you seen that list of FAs on my user page?). Agreed? Cla68 ( talk) 22:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Jimbo, Cla has written a bunch of featured content, you haven't. Think about that then next time you fly first class, or accept a five figure speaking fee, because it's all based off the work of Cla and many others actually creating content. -- PumknPi ( talk) 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Starting this past year, the annual plan includes specific targets. This year's targets were summarized in the announcement of the plan. –  SJ  + 14:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I have no idea of when your actual birthday was, but regarding this edit, [208] I wish you a happy birthday, no matter how belated! A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

It was last month. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Cla68 ( talk) 02:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. [209]

This quote was expressed by Commander Adama in the fictional Battlestar Galactica episode " Water (Battlestar Galactica)". I'm curious about the military history behind it in RL, and the notable thinkers who have discussed it in the literature. Thanks for any pointers. Viriditas ( talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, I don't recall ever being involved in that debate, so I don't have a current base for giving any information on background behind that thought. I think I'll ask it on Quora and see what it shakes out. Do you have a Quora account? Cla68 ( talk) 00:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Nope. Thanks for looking into this for me. Viriditas ( talk) 00:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I had some browser problems, but have now posted the question in Quora here (need a Quora account to view). I will post the replies, if any. Cla68 ( talk) 07:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 07:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

BTW, earlier today, Jill Tarter announced that SETI is receiving funds from the Air Force to search Kepler 22 and surrounding systems. Viriditas ( talk) 07:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Update: according to the Air Force, they are helping fund SETI so they can have time on the Allen Telescope Array for their own military use. According to SETI, "Additional funds necessary for observatory re-activation and operations are being provided by the United States Air Force as part of a formal assessment of the instrument’s utility for Space Situational Awareness (see www.seti.org/afspc for more information)." [210] Viriditas ( talk) 02:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I guess the USAF wants to use it to track or map objects in space. Cla68 ( talk) 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah, especially space junk. Viriditas ( talk) 07:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Update: I think I found the answer to my question: Posse Comitatus Act. Viriditas ( talk) 07:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Interesting. According to the the article, it's been suspended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which says that any U.S. citizen suspected of terrorism can be indefinitely detained. Viriditas ( talk) 07:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The bill has passed the Senate and the House. According to Hugh Jim Bissell on Daily Kos:

The act authorizes the US military to take action within the borders of the United States, to indefinitely detain US citizens, and to deny US citizens their Article III rights to a jury trial. All these measures are in direct conflict with the rights of US citizens as set forth in the US constitution. [211]

I think we have a bit of a problem here. Viriditas ( talk) 08:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

No one has answered the question yet in Quora which surprises me. I could be wrong, but I don't think that bill authorizes the military to actually investigate and arrest non-military US citizens. What it does is authorize the use of military detention facilities and accompanying military personnel to hold terrorism suspects indefinitely, whether they are US citizens or not. From what I understand, top military leaders would strenuously protest any attempt to use the US military as an investigative law enforcement agency within the US, for various reasons. Cla68 ( talk) 23:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Have you heard of the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933? It "nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis...The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany." This act was put into place due to the fear of Communist terrorists. Viriditas ( talk) 10:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Just saw this over at The End of America and though it might interest you. Author Naomi Wolf has observed and described ten steps that societies follow on the road from democracy to outright fascism. Here they are:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissedents to be traitors.
10. Suspend the rule of law

Just FYI... Viriditas ( talk) 08:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

So I thought I'd go see what's up with WR. You gave a passionate defense of it as somehow useful to Wikipedia.

What was just about the first thing I found? You speculating in a disgusting, juvenile, and insulting manner about my personal finances.

I was disappointed, but I also must admit: it's about what I expected from you and from WR.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Jimbo, how many featured articles have you written? Cla's written a bunch. It's perfectly reasonable for the people who built this project to be interested in the fact that you are making a living off their back. You are a public figure, Jimbo, and this is the life you chose. -- PumknPi ( talk) 16:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

P.S. Jimbo, is this the post you are wining about? Because I don't see anything "disgusting or juvenile". You might find it insulting, personally, but the truth isn't always kind. -- PumknPi ( talk) 16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Care to point out the non juvenile and non disgusting bits in this little dicussion? John lilburne ( talk) 16:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Wow, you're the one being insulting here, Jimbo. This really shows your complete lack of professionalism. Silver seren ^C 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I love it when Wikipedians use words like "professionalism", because they have such delightfully idiosyncratic definitions of the term. Is it "professional" to speculate online about the personal life of other people you work with? You can probably guess how a truly professional organization would deal with a volunteer who did something like that. MastCell  ^Talk 20:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I've never taken Jimbo seriously, and consistently find juvenile and disgusting articles on wikipedia. Too bad Jimbo doesn't help edit it. Maybe Jimbo is just displaying a complex sense of humor on Cla68's talk page. Cheeky monkey! Cookiehead ( talk) 17:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Here's the situation, as I see it. Cla68 sometimes has problems assuming good faith in fellow Wikipedia editors. This problem has even manifested itself with the founder of Wikipedia. Cla68 has problems assuming good faith especially when someone banned from editing Wikipedia complains on Wikipedia Review about a Wikipedia editor in good standing. It appears to me that Cla68 may fancy himself some kind of hero over on Wikipedia review. Cla68 is a most excellent editor in certain areas. When he is trying to be a hero to the WR crowd he can be dysfunctional IMHO. I think his Climate Change editing was one example. CC is an example where Cla68 fancies himself some kind of hero that fights "activists". Regarding the comments here about Jimbo, I'm sure that Jimbo does most all of his article edits using another account. It would be awkward trying to follow the concensus model if one of the editors was the famous Jimbo Wales. Bill Huffman ( talk) 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

so you're asserting that Wales edits anonymously when trying to be consistent with Wikipedia's ideal standards of consensus editing, but as himself when he wants people to know who it is that is weighing in on any issue/editor/article, and so presumably have more effect on "consensus" due to status? Cookiehead ( talk) 21:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Jimbo, didn't you once publically say that you were "set for life" after your years spent trading in the Chicago commodities exchange, or something like that? If you have spoken thusly on your finances, it is part of your public persona. If what you said publically is false, then it should also be publically discussed. Furthermore, at least in the past, on your advertising page for your public speaking business, you said that you would only fly first class. If you aren't as rich as you have implied that you are, then who is paying for you to fly first class, the WMF? If not them, who? Cla68 ( talk) 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I guess the obvious question is what business is it of yours? Prioryman ( talk) 22:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Jimbo is Wikipedia's de facto spokesman. If the WMF is serious about their product and brand, and I think it's obvious what they need to do. Cla68 ( talk) 22:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

And you're free not to donate to the WMF if you feel that it is spending its money unwisely on first-class air fares. I don't understand why Jimbo posted on your page in the first place. He says "it's about what I expected from you." Then what was the point of his post? It comes perilously close to trolling. Perhaps someone should issue a formal warning? ;) ScottyBerg ( talk) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

As long as the WMF keeps pretending to provide leadership to Wikipedia, I will keep pretending to support their funding. Cla68 ( talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I would suggest that both you and Jimbo are trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. I wish you both luck. ScottyBerg ( talk) 00:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Possibly. I will just state some facts in response to the shocking falsehoods that Cla68 and others have put forward in this thread.

1. " Furthermore, at least in the past, on your advertising page for your public speaking business, you said that you would only fly first class." - absolutely false, I have never said any such thing anywhere at any time
2. The Wikimedia Foundation pays me no salary and no expenses of any kind. No plane tickets. No hotel rooms. I sometimes accept a meal at a board dinner, and once they organized and paid for a taxi for me to the airport in San Francisco - over my objections.
3. "I am Wikipedia" is something Cla68 accusing me of "milking for all its worth" - that's false. I never say anything like that, I do not believe anything like that, and indeed put forward the opposite view at every opportunity.

If Cla68 wants to be taken seriously, he needs to grow up and cut out the snarking and assumptions of bad faith.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Jimbo, you get big time speaking fees (and in the past demanded first class tickets) by virtue of your relationship with Wikipedia. You started another company based off the mediawiki software developed here by volunteers. You have (or had) thousands of links from Wikipedia to your for-profit wikia. You got a bunch of your startup employees for from here.

You've made a nifty little career out of Larry Sanger's invention and the hard work of people like Cla68. Instead of spitting venom at them you should be thanking them.

Wikipedia is nothing without content - that's why it's here. People like Cla68 built this place and you are making a living off their back - show a little gratitude. -- PumknPi ( talk) 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is nothing without content which people can screw up to perform character assassination, which is the most fun part for certain people with agendas ;) Gravitoweak ( talk) 01:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

As far as reliability for accuracy, WR gets a D at best. While not absolutely useless, whatever tiny morsel of factual investigative tidbids that can be gleemed from the site are buried under a mountain of conspiracy theories. MONGO 15:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, WR is definitely more successful at identifying corruption, dichotomies, and problems in Wikipedia than in suggesting solutions. One problem with identifying exactly what is behind all the problems is the obsessive secrecy with which WP's administrators operate, such as the past use of members-only email lists. MONGO, did you ever belong to one or more of those lists? If so, could you tell me here who else were members and if Wikipedia administrative business or article content were ever discussed or coordinated? That would help discredit any silly conspiracy theories still floating around out there. Cla68 ( talk) 04:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I was on two lists...one disbanded quickly. The other existed simply to assist in trying to console and prevent online harassment...wikistalking which was spilling over into real life issues. I won't identify others that were involved...no administrative actions were coordinated such as policy changes and absolutely no article content coordination was undertaken. My efforts at the NPA policy in 2007 were related but independent based on my own personal experiences. I haven't participated in any of those mailings in almost 4 years...much is a bit foggy now. WR used to have a whole section there about MONGO...including contributions from Wiki banned editors, at least one of which created an article about MONGO at encyclopedia dramatica...all I saw in the threads there in that section at WR was a bunch of opinionated stupidities. MONGO 14:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

MOMGO, WikipediaReview is uncensored - people can speak their honest mind without getting banned, unlike Wikipedia. Here it's much worse because you have smug arrogant privileged editors baiting other editors into bannable 'incivility', applied with different standards to different editors, in order to censor critics. Furthermore, Wikipedia has all kinds of söperseceret forms, including Jimbo's own little secret star chamber where he called on the administrative staff of the world's largest reference site to go after Larry Sanger; "((jwalse)) he made up the "co-founder" bit after I fired him". MONGO, if you want to complain about truly venal on-line behavior, take a look at your own house first. -- PumknPi ( talk) 20:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hum...impressive contributions history...good work! MONGO 21:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

In point of fact, I was an administrator here before you made your first edit. I just check in once in a while to see how things are going. I'm glad to see you still here MONGO, I know about all the good articles you wrote and how much you were picked on in years past. -- PumknPi ( talk) 21:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

(replying to your comment at SG's talkpage, [212] since you're one of the few people whose opinion I care about)

Cla68, thank you, but are you understanding my point as well? I like the idea of recall. I liked it the first time I heard about it (when as a new Wikipedia editor, I saw the category on an admin's page). I entered the category voluntarily, and I have stayed in it voluntarily, even though I could have easily removed myself from the category years ago. There is nothing, absolutely nothing preventing me from removing myself from the category: There would be zero consequences. But I continue to stand by the standards which I have delineated at User:Elonka/Recall, and I am well aware that if I screw up, there will probably be no problem getting "senior Wikipedians" to endorse a recall request (in fact, sadly, I can think of three off the top of my head who would probably immediately endorse such a request, regardless of whether or not there was even any merit to it). But the key issue for me is, that the spirit of the recall process is that it's supposed to be used to remove an admin who has been screwing up. It's not something that's just supposed to be used as a political tool by a harasser, to intimidate an admin who has made no abuse of tools, and no violations of policy. If, on the other hand, an admin was making a bunch of bad calls, then a recall might be appropriate. Note I'm not talking about the occasional mistake that any human can make, or one of those borderline situations where different admins might legitimately disagree about the best way to deal with a situation. Instead, I'm talking about a really major "OMG s/he's out of control" kind of situation where an admin was doing things that most uninvolved members of the community would say was inappropriate. That is what recall is supposed to be for, as a mechanism to get rid of a bad admin. But the recall that was initiated in 2008 was initiated purely for political reasons, rather than because of an admin's actual actions. -- El on ka 19:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, I might just take you up on that offer. Could you have a read through it (if you haven't already) and then drop me an email with your thoughts (unless you're on Skype, in which case we can discuss it in real time, but if not, email will do). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm about to be busy for the next few hours, but I should be able to drop you a line later today (Japan time). Cla68 ( talk) 01:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

That's fine—I'm an Englishman and it's nearly 2am here so I'm off to bed! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I will probably summarize the main points as I understand them from from each side. When I do that, why don't I do it on a page in my userspace instead of private communication? That way, other editors can watch the discussion and we can communicate in almost real time over Wikipedia? Cla68 ( talk) 01:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

That could work, sure. Determining consensus... by consensus—novel, but I like it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Given that your offer seems to be causing some controversy (and this close has to be done as uncontroversially as possible so that the "losing" side doesn't have any reason not to accept its legitimacy), I think it would perhaps be best if you withdraw from the role. I don't doubt your offer was made in good faith, but there is a risk that the controversy surrounding your involement could overshadow the close and that wouldn't be in Wikipedia's best interests. Sorry, Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 14:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

RFA is dying because of all the harassment and bad behavior. Want to run for RFA and show up those idiots from years ago? It would be hilarious if you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griefer ladness ( talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

User:Cla68/Deliberation page, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/Deliberation page during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hans Adler 12:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

PS: I mentioned this at WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Verifiability. Hans Adler 15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Indications above and on Admin List is that you are not one? Were you not aware that the closer needs to be an Admin. or maybe I'm mistaken that such was expected? Leaky Caldron 15:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I think you should be congratulated for offering to help, and the page you have started appears to be quite useful. However, given the circumstances and the drama that's building up, it might be better if you withdrew your offer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I'm leaving my page up with my summary and reasoning. The closing admins are invited to use it if they want to. If my involvement helps get the RfC closed sooner, then I'm happy to have been of service. Cla68 ( talk) 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I agree with Cla, it's an appropriate page that may be useful to the deciders. Dreadstar ☥ 01:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I (NAC) closed it, I think my reasoning is sound so hopefully it sticks. I think the drama of the MFD far outweighs any (real or perceived) harm to the encyclopedia. Cheers. Crazynas ^t 05:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC) reply