User talk:Cla68/Non-military history project dialogues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Shut out 2 Masutatsu Oyama 3 Linda Ham 4 Talk page comment 5 Your report on WP:AIV 6 it was a violation of WP:BLP 7 Weiss bio 8 Your edit to my user page 9 Your POV-pushing and personal attacks 10 Gary Weiss 11 Your comment 12 Cleanup request 13 Ryan Leaf FAC 14 Posting personal details 15 Featured article candidate 16 Thank you for the barnstar 17 RfC on Mitsos 18 Response to Your Question on my Talk Page 19 To stay silent is to consent 20 FYI 21 Request 22 Rex Germanus vs. Matthead 23 Thank you 24 Happy New Year 25 Gus 26 Southwest trivia 27 Thank you 28 Administrator? 29 User pages 30 ANI 31 Spam and your RfA: a recruiting pitch for WP:WPSPAM 32 Warning 33 Disappointing 34 RfA close 35 Page protection requests 36 RfC 37 civility 38 Masada 39 Your RFA 40 POV 41 Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) 42 Our apparently shared experience in attempts to nuke us as "wordbomb" 43 Re: Quote 44 Crisscross merge proposal 45 Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) Request for Comment 46 Test of new signature 47 WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive 48 David Lewis article 49 Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident GAC 50 Re: RfC 51 Why Me? 52 Re: Michael Brown FAC 53 Nottingham Panthers GA 54 Michael Lee Brown incident 55 Your message 56 How to solve your Rfa roadblock 57 m:User:Cla68 58 Thanks 59 RfA thanks 60 My recent RfB 61 My RfB 62 July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive 63 Thank you! 64 My RfA 65 FA Congratulations 66 sig on WBFAN 67 Thank you 68 David Lewis (politician) Good Article Review 69 Fair use disputed for Image:Saldivar.gif 70 Thanks 71 Operation Passage to Freedom 72 RfA 73 What about being an admin? 74 Your cleanup tag 75 copyediting 76 Keep up the good work 77 Two more quick reviews? 78 RfC 79 24 hour block 80 24 hour block 81 block reduced to 6 hours 82 Veropedia 83 Preity Zinta FA 84 Not acceptable 85 ErgoEgo perma blocked by "Sarah" and JzG. 86 Your note 87 AGF Please 88 Harassment? 89 you posed a question 90 Your quote in The Register 91 clarification 92 Statement regarding Durova/!! matter 93 Section title 94 Knock it off, Durova 95 Encouraging the disruption at Doc Glasgow 96 Ownership issues 97 Recall 98 Giano clarification 99 Book Off 100 Your comment on COGDEN's RfC 101 Talk to User:DuncanHill about the RfC 102 DTCC 103 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles 104 A note of thanks 105 Bad faith participation 106 The blocking admin 107 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC 108 Note on RfCs 109 Japanese photo submissions 110 RfC

[edit] Shut out

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)

[edit] Masutatsu Oyama

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Linda Ham

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Talk page comment

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)

[edit] Your report on WP:AIV

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)

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

[edit] it was a violation of WP:BLP

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)

[edit] Weiss bio

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)

(removing edit by confirmed sockpuppet of User:Wordbomb)

[edit] Your edit to my user page

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)

[edit] Your POV-pushing and personal attacks

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Gary Weiss

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] Your comment

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Cleanup request

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)

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)

[edit] Ryan Leaf FAC

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

[edit] Posting personal details

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Featured article candidate

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)

[edit] Thank you for the barnstar

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)

[edit] RfC on Mitsos

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)

[edit] Response to Your Question on my Talk Page

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)

[edit] To stay silent is to consent

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)

[edit] FYI

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)

[edit] Request

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)

[edit] Rex Germanus vs. Matthead

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)

[edit] Thank you

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)

[edit] Happy New Year

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)

• 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)
• Excellent! I provided the citations for the paragraphs that you had mentioned. Thank you again! WikiprojectOWU 00:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

[edit] Gus

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)

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)

[edit] Southwest trivia

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)

[edit] Thank you

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)

[edit] Administrator?

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)

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)

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)

[edit] User pages

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)

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)

[edit] ANI

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)

[edit] Spam and your RfA: a recruiting pitch for WP:WPSPAM

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)

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)

[edit] Warning

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Disappointing

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)

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)

[edit] RfA close

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)

[edit] Page protection requests

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)

[edit] RfC

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)

[edit] civility

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

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)

[edit] Masada

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/w/index.php?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)

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)

[edit] Your RFA

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)

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)

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)

[edit] POV

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)

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)

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)

[edit] Our apparently shared experience in attempts to nuke us as "wordbomb"

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Re: Quote

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

[edit] Crisscross merge proposal

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)

[edit] Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) Request for Comment

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Test of new signature

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

[edit] WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

[edit] David Lewis article

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)

[edit] Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident GAC

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

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

[edit] Re: RfC

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)

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

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 interestedPiperdown 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Why Me?

—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

[edit] Re: Michael Brown FAC

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)

[edit] Nottingham Panthers GA

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)

[edit] Michael Lee Brown incident

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

[edit] Your message

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)

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)

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)

[edit] How to solve your Rfa roadblock

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)

[edit] m:User:Cla68

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)

[edit] Thanks

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

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

[edit] RfA thanks

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)

[edit] My recent RfB

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)

[edit] My RfB

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, Húsönd 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 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, Húsönd 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

[edit] July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

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)

[edit] Thank you!

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)

[edit] My RfA

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)

[edit] FA Congratulations

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

[edit] sig on WBFAN

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)

[edit] Thank you

		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)

[edit] David Lewis (politician) Good Article Review

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Saldivar.gif

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)

[edit] Thanks

[edit] Operation Passage to Freedom

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)

[edit] RfA

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 57 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks again for your congratulations! Number 57 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about being an admin?

[edit] Your cleanup tag

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)

[edit] copyediting

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)

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)

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

[edit] Keep up the good work

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

[edit] Two more quick reviews?

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)

[edit] RfC

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] 24 hour block

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)

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

[edit] 24 hour block

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

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)

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)

[edit] block reduced to 6 hours

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Veropedia

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)

[edit] Preity Zinta FA

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)

[edit] Not acceptable

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)

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)

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

[edit] ErgoEgo perma blocked by "Sarah" and JzG.

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] Your note

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)

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)

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)

[edit] AGF Please

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

[edit] Harassment?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Rockpocket 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

[edit] you posed a question

...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)

[edit] Your quote in The Register

"'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] clarification

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)

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)

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

[edit] Statement regarding Durova/!! matter

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)

[edit] Section title

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

[edit] Knock it off, Durova

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)

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)

[edit] Encouraging the disruption at Doc Glasgow

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)

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)

[edit] Ownership issues

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)

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)

[edit] Recall

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)

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)

[edit] Giano clarification

"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 —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Book Off

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)

[edit] Your comment on COGDEN's RfC

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)

[edit] Talk to User:DuncanHill about the RfC

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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

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)

[edit] DTCC

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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] A note of thanks

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)

[edit] Bad faith participation

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 57 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The blocking admin

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)

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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

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)

[edit] Note on RfCs

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

• And another RfC to chronicle the Weiss/Bagley dispute in Wikipedia here. Cla68 (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)

[edit] Japanese photo submissions

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)

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)

[edit] RfC

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

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)

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)

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