User talk:Cla68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
17 September 2014

Older threads temporarily moved to User talk:Cla68/Holding area so that this talk page is a reasonable size. Click here to jump to the bottom of the page.

Contents

February 2013[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for a deliberate violation of WP:OUTING. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of persons reading this discussion, the following is a redacted version of the unblock request posted by Cla68 that led to his talk page access being revoked. The original post has been removed using Oversight. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

[Person] has publicly self-identified as [link to off-site page outing person|real name]. On a further note, Beeblebrox did not give me any detail on where the outing occurred. I had to look at [second off-site thread outing person] to find out why, because I knew that [person]'s real name ([real name]) was publicly acknowledged and couldn't figure out what Beeblebrox was going on about.
— User:Cla68

Really, Cla? Your defense against the charge of outing is to do even more outing? If you keep this up, I will revoke your talk page access. If you feel some incredible need to use private information in your unblock request, email arbcom. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk page access revoked. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 is a long term and valued editor on this project, is this really the best solution you could come up with? It strikes me that a thoughtful approach would be better for the project than your black and white banhammer. Addressing this to the pair of you. Kevin (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree Kevin. Thank you. What would you consider to be a thoughtful approach- a warning? Since I don't know what happened or what was considered outing I can't say much about that, but I think a warning would have been in line.(olive (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC))
The individual who was "outed" has publicly connected his Wikipedia account and his real-name. Hopefully, the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee will resolve this situation and trout the two above admins. Ripberger (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that Cla68 didn't 'out' Russavia, he asked Sue to comment on a blog post about him. Furthermore, the blog post didn't 'out' Russavia either, since Russavia self-identified in at leas two Wikipedia mailing lists and elsewhere on the internet. Beeblebrox simply doesn't know what he is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.251.11 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Most problematic is this was done on the presumption that it was "deliberate" outing to mention the various instances where the editor identified himself as a Wikipedia editor when using his real name. It seems likely that Cla simply presumed "violating privacy" means telling people things a person tries to keep private, rather than telling people things a person has no problem telling random strangers on the Internet.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure a more reasonable solution to this could be worked out. For all the reasons stated above, this block seems inappropriate. Everyking (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations, all.(olive (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC))
  • I am willing to consider the possibility that it was not as malicious as it looked, but it was undeniably outing, and pointing out who was outed yet again here is decidedly unhelpful.
  • What you all seem to have missed is that the outing policy is very clear that for any user who has not publicly stated on Wikipedia what their real name (or have done so but later had it removed) any attempt to reveal their personal information is in fact outing. This is not my opinion, it is exactly what the policy says, should you care to read it. If you don't like that policy, feel free to try and change it, but don't blame us for doing exactly what the community has asked admins to do in such situations.
  • I can also assure you that the other functionaries, including the arbs, are perfectly aware of the block and the exact circumstances surrounding it. The revocation of talk page priveleges was only done after Cla continued to post the same information after already being blocked for it, leaving little choice. If Cla is able to assure BASC that this will never happen again I am sure they would unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I saw the original posting on Sue Gardner's talk page and my recollection is that Cla68 linked to a blog post on Wikipediocracy which disclosed an editor's real name but Cla68 did not "out" the editor in that post although they clearly did in their unblock requests. An immediate indef block seems overly harsh when viewed in context of Cla68's long contribution history. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Cla68 has adopted an extreme battleground position relative to Russavia. Whether or not you think Russavia deserved to be outed so that he could be held responsible for the affronts listed at Wikipediocracy, we at Wikipedia are not here to drag our editors through the mud and ruin them in real life. Cla68 went wa-a-ay overboard in his pursuit of Russavia, and in his unblock request he showed no remorse. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I am familiar with "extreme battleground positions" and Russavia, but I made no comment about anyone "deserving" to be outed. I only pointed out that the punishment seems inappropriate for the original offence. Cla68's actual outing violations came in the unblock requests for the indef block. I do not know if they would have made the same statements if the block were shorter or if they had only received a warning. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at the WP:Harassment talkpage [1]. Ripberger (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You are right Beebs, the letter of the policy is completely idiotic to suggest it is a violation of privacy to note publicly here the connection between the account name and real name of an individual who has willingly disclosed the same connection publicly elsewhere. That is indeed a problem with the policy, but then Wikipedia is not supposed to be about rules so "because the policy said so" is not the best reason. Unfortunately, our policy doesn't really allow for a middle-ground on this matter and we end up having to engage in some drama-laden bitchfest to figure out where the middle-ground lies on a case-by-case basis.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
There actually is a policy on that! [2] Ripberger (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (quadruple edit conflict) Again, that is exactly what the policy says to do, and I quote "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." If that seems wrong to you, open an RFC on the policy. Before doing so you all may want to note that the same policy protects your privacy, the privacy of the many minor children who edit here (isn't that your pet cause, DC?) and everyone else as well.Trying to get someone in trouble with WMF staff by pointing out a blog post that is nothing but a prolonged attack on them and an attempt to get as much negative attention on their real world identity as possible is not ok. If you don't see that wait till it happens to you and they drag your parents, your job, etc into it. Sound like fun? Didn't think so. ou will find few admins (and even fewer functionaries) as willing to ignore rules as I am, but there is a time and a place Good night. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So where can I read his unblock request?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Those have been oversighted. You can't read them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
So the offending material couldn't be redacted and the rest of his request left intact? That's just awesome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I have sent an email to the functionaries list requesting the restoration of a redacted version of Cla68's unblock request. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Your email hasn't made it to the list yet (non-subscriber emails are moderated, and only one or two people who might not be online right now handle the moderation), but his unblock request was (with problematic content redacted): "[person] has publicly self-identified as [link to off-site page outing person|real name]. On a further note, Beeblebrox did not give me any detail on where the outing occurred. I had to look at [second off-site thread outing person] to find out why, because I knew that [person]'s real name ([real name]) was publicly acknowledged and couldn't figure out what Beeblebrox was going on about." As you can see, there's not much left to the request once you take out the content outing another user, and certainly not enough to allow another admin to adequately review an unblock request; given that, there wasn't much reason to leave a basically-empty unblock request active. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Fluffernutter. Keeping details of situations like this visible is important - even when necessary redaction reduces them to a skeleton, as above - to allow editors to get the full picture, and avoid potential accusations of Kafkaesque administration. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. Would you mind wrapping that quote in a {{tq}} to make it stand out a bit? I have put a copy of it at the top of this section. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, this is why I didn't want to involve myself in this situation. What Cla68 did in his unblock requests was a violation of WP:OUTING. What they did on Sue's talk page was not so clearly a violation. Violations of WP:OUTING are grounds for an immediate block. Grounds for a block does not mean that you indef a long-term contributor without discussion. Especially when the incident was arguably not a violation. You can claim that you are "ignoring all rules", but it would have been sensible to approach Cla68 and let them know that you thought it was a violation rather than going directly to the most extreme solution available to you. I'm not making excuses for Cla68, but I think this situation could have easily been avoided altogether. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
IAR generally refers to content not people. Content can't explain or apologize or try to do better next time. Either there was outing or there wasn't. You can't attempt to out information that is public. I don't know what has been oversighted, but I would agree with Delicious Carbuncle that there are steps one can take to deal with difficult situations. Discussion, and warnings are first steps in dealing with editors, while skipping the first steps to jump to the most extreme one appears to be hasty, and bypasses the route that results in learning and in holding on to experienced editors.(olive (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC))

Assuming there is no mystery left as to who was outed and how, perhaps the easiest way forward is to unblock Cla68. The unblock request does seem reasonable, when redacted. --regentspark (comment) 16:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, I'm going to have to disagree there. The unblock request (original version) repeatedly re-outed the person who had been outed, and when he was told to not use private information in unblock requests, Cla followed that up with re-re-outing the person in his response to that warning. The redacted version of the unblock request amounts to "I wasn't told which specific page I outed someone on, so unblock me", which is pretty much unrelated to whether he intends to continue outing people or not, which is the information we need to know to evaluate whether the block is still necessary. Right now all available evidence, up to and including his unblock request and responses here before his talk page access was removed, points to "no, he does not understand how his behavior was unacceptable, and yes, he intends to continue that behavior if unblocked". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
But it doesn't look like there are any secrets left (or are there?). If everyone else feels they can discuss the outed material here then isn't this just more drama for no reason at all? I'm not arguing against the original block or Someguy's talk page access revocation. They both seem fine. But, I don't see much point in a continued block (unless there was more outing than what is being disclosed above). --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It was definitely neglectful of the blocking admin to not inform Cla68 of where the violation occurred. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
RegentsPark, you'll notice that no one in this thread has said or linked to the outed person's personal information. Because that's against policy, as discussed heavily above. So yes, I'd say there are "secrets" left, and they will be staying that way, as our policy says they must. If and when Cla68 comprehends that his behavior was contrary to policy, he can submit an unblock request to WP:UTRS or Arbcom and explain that he doesn't intend to continue with it, and I imagine an unblock would be swift at that point; however, unblocking on the basis of "people know an outing occurred and someone was blocked for it, so let's unblock him since people know he's blocked for it" doesn't make a ton of sense. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That wasn't my reasoning. Rather, if the outed information, after being redacted, is being freely discussed here, then there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing the block because other editors don't see the need for keeping the information secret. However, if there is still something that cla68 disclosed but is not being freely discussed, then it is a different matter. --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on reading the above, I fully expected to find that a grave error was made here, and that the letter of the outing prohibition was followed while ignoring its purpose. That's not what I found. It was trivially easy to find out the supposed identity of the Wikipedia editor in question off-wiki. But the various articles, user accounts and media file names(!) making the connection all seem to be malicious third-party creations. I personally consider any link to such malicious off-wiki outing to be absolutely block-worthy. Hans Adler 16:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it may not be hard to figure out the identity, but that doesn't mean we should ignore our own rules against posting such information on-Wiki. Nobody thinks it is hard to find an illegal song on the internet, that doesn't mean we should feel free to link it. I'm puzzled at a theme suggesting the block was premature and should have been discussed first. Blocks are reversible. Outing information, not so easy. Given the repeat of the posting after being blocked, the decision to block talk page access was not only valid, but no other option makes sense. We can now have a measured discussion, and if the result is that he should be unblocked, then he can be unblocked. I do understand why he wanted to share some information with Sue Gardner. I also think he is bright enough to figure out how to do it privately.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently Russavia self-identified. Is that so? An indef ban is not the same as a block, and perhaps requires some warning and discussion. I don't see the point in by passing those steps when the ultimate ban is an outcome. We are here to hold on to editors to educate and work with them, or us- they are us in a collaborataive project. There is enough contention in this thread alone to question what happened here. If there is a question, what is the concern with revisiting the editor in a mature way and opening a discussion that does not preclude guilt which might anger or upset any of us.(olive (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC))
Good block. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Cla68's gross misconduct here is more than ironic, given his vehemence in the TimidGuy appeal case that WillBeback be banned for identifying to Jimbo TimidGuy's employer, something TimidGuy had previously posted himself, but had removed. And at least one of Cla68's defenders is in the identical boat of having previously posted their employer but having had it redacted, and like Cla68 clamored for a ban against WillBeback, making the defense puzzling at best. No admin or arb should be willing to lift Cla68's ban unless they are prepared to do the same simultaneously with respect to WillBeback.Fladrif (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You're grossly mischaracterizing the behavior for which WillBeback was banned. That somewhat undermines the equivalency argument. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
He self-identified off-wiki several times, including on Wikimedia mailing lists that are public. More importantly, he has stated on-wiki that he lives in Perth, Australia, and owns a perfume business. In two separate articles that I know about Russavia had added links to that business as references. They were removed a year ago, several years after they had been added, but it was by another editor with the stated reason for removal being that the links had gone dead and were probably not reliable in the first place. Anyone looking at the whois details for those links would have his name.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the above, and the fact that Cla68 is clearly a far more valuable editor to enwiki than Russavia (Commons issues, currently blocked) he should just post another unblock request. I know what I'd do with it. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    Relative usefulness of editors is not a factor in wp:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information. ϢereSpielChequers 21:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether privacy has actually been violated, on the other hand, is a factor. I noted above that the editor who was supposedly outed had disclosed on-wiki that he owned a perfume business and linked to it in a couple of articles. Well, the disclosure happened in a deletion discussion regarding one of those articles where there were only two edits by that editor to the article, with one being to initiate the deletion discussion and the other being to add the reference. The editor outed himself a long time ago by making a promotional edit to an article where his conflict of interest would be known.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • A sentiment I would completely agree with if it were a simple case of outing information which was not available elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Currently the policy seems clear that self disclosure can only be argued if it is on Wikipedia. I've slipped up on mailing lists and I'm sure I'm not the only one, but as you can't retract a mailing list post it makes sense to treat them differently to an unredacted post on one's userpage. As for Whois info and so forth - well the policy seems clear to me "If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority." My take on that is that if you can join up the dots via research such as whois then there is a way to deal with COI violations without outing people here or on badsites. So I'd hope that no-one would unblock Cla68 unless we at least had an assurance that if in future he thought it necessary to link someone to their offwiki persona he would email Arbcom rather than out someone on wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 21:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • AFAIK (and per TDA above) much of that information (if not all of it) is available on-wiki. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The disclosure was never removed and the links were removed by another editor years later for being unreliable sources that were also dead links. All of that information is still publicly available. We have no reason to believe Cla68 was aware that outing was even an issue. The blog post actually made the case that it was not outing before really detailing anything else so even if you think the blog post itself was outing I don't see why we should assume that Cla68 was posting the link with any intention of outing anyone. He had every reason to believe that it was not outing given the various voluntary disclosures noted in the blog post.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, come off it. Wikipediocracy outed an editor, Cla68 advertised that outing on Wikipedia, got blocked and outed the editor again in his unblock request. He knows perfectly well not to do that kind of thing once, let alone repeat it. The right thing to do would have been to admit the error, apologise and promise never to do it again, but Cla68 doesn't seem to do apologies. Quite simply, he was trolling - not for the first time - and got smacked hard down for it. Good riddance, frankly. The fewer Wikipediocracy users we have here, the better. Prioryman (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that Cla's intent by linking to the blog post on-wiki was to be malicious toward the editor in question. So, we can argue whether this technically does or does not fit into the definition of outing, but if the intent was to have a negative effect on a Wikipedia editor, I think that says more than enough. SilverserenC 22:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hans Adler has posted a comment elsewhere which I think is worth highlighting: "It's not directly about harm, it's about privacy invasion. There is a huge difference between someone handing out the occasional detail about their personal life in on-wiki conversations and mailing list posts on one hand, and on the other hand a big blog post that is all about "LOOK HERE EVERYONE! USER X IS REALLY Y Z FROM Q! READ ON FOR ALL OF X'S ACCOUNTS THAT I COULD FIND AND GOSSIP ABOUT HIS WORK!" That blog post is an off-site attack page. We don't have to discuss whether it can be harmful if harm is very obviously the intent. And once a person has been targeted in this way one really has to be careful about repeating any of the information on-wiki, even if one considers it well known from previous interactions." Prioryman (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The blog post made mention of one of the editor's comments towards a female editor regarding explicit imagery on Wikipedia and presented this as a counter-point to Sue Gardener's claims regarding reasons for the gender gap. Cla68 left a comment on the blog post that he was posting it to her page to get a comment and that's what he did.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not buying that. Cla68 could just as easily have emailed his question to Sue and protected the editor's privacy. Instead he posted it publicly and highlighted the malicious blog posting for all to see (I note that Sue has 130 talk page watchers). Cla67 wasn't simply seeking to get Sue's views, he was publicly exposing the editor concerned. I've no doubt that was quite deliberate. Prioryman (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Whether it was appropriate to post it publicly on-wiki is a reasonable question, but hardly one that suggests an indef block is the appropriate response.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire. [3]Fladrif (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
If you don't think that outing should merit a block then WT Outing is thataway. Current policy is that it does unless the outing was unintentional and non-malicious. Considering the involvement of a certain off wiki site I'm not convinced that this was either..... ϢereSpielChequers 02:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
But that's not the question. The question is: do Cla68's actions constitute outing? At the very least, it's questionable, and I don't believe it's been established. Everyking (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Best way to establish that, right now, is to check with the oversight team. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
But don't we know the facts already? Everyking (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The outing policy is quite clear: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. There is no pretence in the blog post that Cla68 linked to that any of the personal information in question came from Wikipedia - it is scraped from various places around the Web. Cla68 has publicly posted the text of an unblock request that he has sent to Arbcom, which effectively makes the same point, as none of the links he has cited in evidence of his position comes from Wikipedia. While Cla68 didn't write the blog post in question (I assume), his act of posting a link to it also clearly constitutes an act of harassment; WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment says: Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia. Honestly, none of this is rocket science. It's all very well-understood wikipolicy going back years, with plenty of precedent in how it is applied. The fact that Cla68 is a long-established contributor actually makes his action more egregious, as he knows perfectly well that this kind of outing is strictly prohibited and I've not seen even the slightest expression of regret from him. Prioryman (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
My point was that if one allows that it was not outing it is all the same reasonable to say it shouldn't have been posted publicly on-wiki, but that this in itself is not worthy of an indefinite block.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Cla68 cannot be heard to credibly claim that this was not outing, having vigorously argued exactly the opposite in far less serious, yet otherwise comparable circumstances, against WillBeback in the TimidGuy appeal ArbCom. At least Will's alleged outing violation (again, involving information TimidGuy posted to on-Wiki but which he had redacted, plus off-Wiki postings}, was only in private correspondence to Jimbo, not in a post to a generally-available Wikipedia talk or userpage. What's sauce for the goose....etc.Fladrif (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I looked over the case and I don't see how that's an accurate interpretation. Cla68 did not really discuss outing issues, but seemed to be making a general point that WillBeback conducted investigations into the personal lives of other editors to win content disputes and that one instance of this led to TimidGuy's block. That is markedly different from what we are discussing here. Cla68 posted a link to a blog post someone else wrote where the identification was based on public information to get a comment from someone else named in the post.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • WAIT! Why does Sue have so few talk page watchers?!? Should we take this discussion over to her talk page in order to help her out a bit? Girlpower and all that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Girlpower"? Really? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I've seen the phrase used around here a few times. (Well, not here specifically ;)) Always wondered a bit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't know if you want to refactor your comment or not, but it comes across as sexist (at least to me). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Indeed. And patronizing - Alison 08:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Only when used by a male editor? Or all the time? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
              • I think you know exactly what you are saying and why it's wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:28, 2 March 2013‎ (UTC)
                • I know exactly what I said and exactly what I meant by it. What you're trying to read into it is your problem. If my humour is the biggest "wrong" you can find in the world today, you live in a very happy little world and I am delighted for you. (Patronising? Yes. Deserved? Yes.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
                  • It's far from the biggest wrong; I don't know what gave you that impression. In any case, I'm also delighted that you can revel and defend a statement that was either intended as sexist or is easily read as such. Good day, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hrm. "Don't poke the bear" seems mighty applicable here, particularly with regard to having talk page access revoked. On the other hand, regentspark makes a reasonable point that the bell can't be un-rung. And, of course, any attempt to suppress the information will only have the opposite effect.

Is the English Wikipedia served by Cla68 being indefinitely blocked? Probably not. It's disproportionate, at least. Perhaps a fixed expiry would be better here. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Until he understands our outing policy and agrees to abide by it, we have no choice. The ball's in Cla68's court. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I would look additionally for a clear acknowledgement that he was wrong to act as he did. So far his responses, both on this page and in his email to Arbcom, have amounted to "I did nothing wrong because you can find this personal information on these off-wiki pages", which shows that he simply doesn't get it. (Actually I think he does get it but is just being self-righteous.) Prioryman (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Considering this is a controversial matter, as illustrated by the length and contentiousness of this discussion, I think it would be best to unblock Cla68 for the time being and hold a community discussion to decide whether this constitutes outing and what should be done. Everyking (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The block was made by an oversighter and has been appealed to the Arbitration Committee; nobody (or at least anyone who wants to keep their sysop bit) is going to unblock without Arbcom's approval. Prioryman (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) @ Everyking. The problem with detailed discussion of an outing case is that you can't do it publicly without outing the individual who was allegedly the victim of the alleged outing. That's one of the main reasons why we have an audit committee, if people want to argue with them that this wasn't actually outing then go email them your evidence. But as I see it the controversy isn't really over whether this was outing, the controversy is over some editors wanting an exception to be made to the Outing policy because they consider Cla68 too valuable an editor to be lost. My suggestion to them is to either persuade Cla68 to agree to comply with the rules of this community, or file an RFC calling for vested contributors to be granted immunity from some of the rules that apply to the rest of us. Neither option requires that Cla68 be unblocked. ϢereSpielChequers 15:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I see your point. However, I don't think many people (if any) are suggesting we should make exceptions. The main sentiment I see is that people don't view this as an actual violation of the policy. Everyking (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The other problem is that cases like this end up only being able to be discussed on... Wikipediocracy (or WR, if it's up and running this week). A bug for some, a feature for others, perhaps. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a bottom line here. Was this outing or wasn't it. Further, we don't ever get to theorize on an editor's motives which in truth only he knows, and we don't get to reapply the policy to suit the editor. And if we're not sure and clearly as a group we aren't, warn and discuss to clarify for all involved. There is no loss of face in an Admin and editor reevaluating their positions.(olive (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC))

In this case the blog post quite literally argues that this editor's identity is not a secret, so the claim that Cla68 engaged in a "deliberate violation" is weakened considerably on that basis alone. He insists it isn't outing and he has a perfectly reasonable basis for feeling that way so it definitely suggests there was no deliberate outing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Again: oh, come off it. The issue at the heart of WP:OUTING is not and never has been whether an editor's identity is a "secret". I'll point out the relevant bit to you: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." There's absolutely nothing there about information being "secret". Not even Cla68, in his appeals against his block, has argued that the editor in question disclosed their own personal information on Wikipedia. Yes, you could probably find out who most pseudonymous Wikipedians are by trawling Google to find them. But the point of WP:OUTING is to discourage that kind of "opposition research". If a person has chosen to be known by a pseudonym on Wikipedia, that's not an invitation try to find out their identity by trawling through search engines. Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
You are presenting the statement about opposition research out of context:

The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research".

That term includes actions towards people who self-identify. In the sentence that follows the meaning is made clearer. One could view the blog post's discussion of off-wiki actions as "opposition research", but not the identification itself as that is based off on-wiki disclosures (the perfume business thing).--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

WTF is this all about? We kick out one editor for bad reasons and someone else discusses that editor a year later on some other site and then we kick out that editor as well???? Count Iblis (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure. Here on Wikipedia we love to kick people out for all sorts of reasons, good and bad... Everyking (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Cla is not banned or anything, all they have to do is assure BASC that they now and understand and will respect the outing policy. I haven't seen the unblock request referred to above (where is it?) but apparently they have not yet done that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • As someone who has appreciated many of Cla's past contributions, I've been watching all this unfold. (the discussion here, I'm not familiar with the details which brought it about). Apparently there were some outing issues, and after 1 unblock request, Cla's talk page ability was revoked. If all this is now in private channels (BASC), and Cla is unable to respond to anything here; I'm curious as to what can be resolved with all this. — Ched :  ?  22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, hopefully it will be seen that this is in serious enough contention that any appeal will be reviewed with that taken into consideration.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hopefully it will also be seen that administrative staff on the boxcutter site are now also helpfully offering to "out" (that's their phrasing, not mine) some of the people who've commented in this discussion. Certainly an interesting attempt to provide "chilling effects". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Even if true, how is that relevant to the merits of this block? Everyking (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Prioryman is right. While some are arguing that his actions shouldn't be considered outing, they are essentially arguing for a change in policy. That might be warranted, but until such time as the policy is changed, we make decisions on the existing policy. I have seen many people argue the information isn't hard to find, but that's not the test - is the information on Wikipedia, placed there by the subject? I haven't seen any such claim.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Privacy related issues are not an area where we play fast and loose with the rules. A few commenters here aside, that is not what the community wants us to do and it is not what the WMF wants us to do either. I would have made the same block no matter who did the outing and who they outed, this is not about what a productive user Cla is, I frankly don't know anything about their other contribs, which is fine bacause they are not relevant to the reasons for this block. Again, Cla can get unblocked anytime they agree to not out anyone ever again, simple as that. And on that note, I am leaving this discussion as i see no point to continuing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, when someone says on-wiki "I own x business" I consider that as good as self-identifying. That is basically what happened as the editor in question said he owned a perfume business during a discussion about an article and then provided a link to that exact business as a reference on the very same article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
While I'm split on this topic overall, that's ... not exactly cut and dry. It's certainly not like he specifically stated "this is my business" and linked to it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It might be wisest not to discuss the details lest this discussion itself be considered outing. And I mean that as a friendly warning since I have myself been blocked by an over-zealous admin for outing that wasn't outing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Think of it this way, if someone's only edit to the article contents was to add a link to a perfume business as a source and that same person has previously said during a discussion of the same article that they own a perfume business, wouldn't you be just a tad curious as to whether the two things were connected? I certainly know I would.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
And if a COI issue is observed because of that, then you send an email to the appropriate group (Arbcom or whomever), you do not get involved in attacking the person off-wiki for the COI, nor do you state who you think they are on-wiki. SilverserenC 04:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Silver seren, conflict of interest issues are discussed at WP:COIN, where -- you should not be surprised to learn -- editors routinely speculate on the associations and identities of other editors and are not blocked for it. This also happens at WP:SPI, although people tend to be a little more careful about linking editors to off-wiki identities. Devil's Advocate, I think it is reasonable to be curious under the circumstances, so long as you assume good faith about the addition of those links. And also their removal (by Silver seren, as it happens). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion break[edit]

  • May I suggest that Cla68 post a note stating that he will not discuss editors' real life identities when he knows they don't like it? Whether or not an editor's identity might be known, it is rude to give them uninvited attention, to violate their privacy on Wikipedia, except in the unusual case there might be a legitimate COI that needs to be discussed. I don't think that exception applies to the present matter. With that assurance from Cla68 in place, I think his account should be unblocked. The goal is to help people to comply with the rules, not to punish, especially not to punish excessively. Jehochman Talk 17:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I very much agree with what Jehochman says here. Since Cla68 can not currently edit his own talk page however, I suppose this would have to be done by proxy. Perhaps an email or some other form of communication with one of the editors he trusts and/or communicates with. That person could then copy and paste what it is that Cla68 would like to say. A word of caution: Anyone doing this should take care to post ONLY the core of what Cla68 would say, and should be careful to NOT include any other information such as email headers etc. — Ched :  ?  18:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
That is an excellent suggestion and sentiment. It is better not to bring up even RL identities that are known (unless it is absolutely necessary). A simple statement from Cla68 would resolve this adequately. --regentspark (comment) 18:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Why "when he knows they don't like it?" How is what Cla68 knows, or thinks he knows, about an editor's preferences relevant to anything? WP:OUTING says nothing about personal preferences - it focuses on whether personal information has been voluntarily disclosed on-wiki or not. Would it not just be simpler to avoid the subject of editors' real-life identities altogether? Prioryman (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Or alternatively we could just let him edit his own talk page. You'd think we were dealing with Grawp or something here. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I keep telling myself I'm, done here, and I have said this three or four times already, but obviously that is all they need to do. However, they need to do it in an email to BASC, at this time the re-instatement of talk page access is not really on the table until after they do that. The series of events was
1. Cla outs someone.
2. I block them for it.
3. The post an unblock request where they repeat the exact same actions that got them blocked.
4. That unblock request is oversighted and the reviewing admin warns them not to do that again.
5. They do it again anyway.
6. Talk page access revoked
7. Long conversation with all sorts of wild speculation and advocacy on behalf of Cla, apparently nobody registers until just now that all they have to do is say they will abide by the outing policy in the future until someone besides me says so.
And here we are. There is no point to continuing to speculate or argue this, Cla is the only one that can get Cla unblocked, and it would be exceedingly simple for them to do so. This continued discussion really is pointless, it is up to Cla to take action to get unblocked. This isn't government work, we don't have to make it more complicated than it needs to be and it really is as simple as that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It would be even simpler if you just unlocked the talk page so that their views could be seen in context, as opposed to an appeal to an authority that is not transparent. You've also got to take into account that there are a significant number of editors above who believe that this was not a simple case of OUTING. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Black Kite. We should be trying to end this and here we have a straightforward, non-bureaucratic way forward assuming talk page access is restored. As a matter of curiosity, do all blocks for outing need to be cleared with oversight? --regentspark (comment) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Not as far as I know, but I have let the oversighter know as well (who was also the admin who removed talkpage access, not Beeblebrox). Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
What should have happened is for Beebs to oversight the original comment and then tell Cla68 that he did this and explain why in sufficiently clear terms with a further request that Cla68 raise any complaints in a way that would not repeat the information. That would have been a reasonable and respectable way to handle the situation.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Now that I'm curious enough to read a bit (my first thought was "oversight" or "revdel"), and seeing that Someguy is actually a member of the Oversight team, I look forward to hearing his input. I'm guessing that this was actually "suppressed" (it appears that the term "oversight" is now antiquated). Perhaps m.Oversight policy? — Ched :  ?  19:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
In all three suppression actions were taken. One for the original post, two for the unblock requests which were actually even worse than the edit that got them blocked in the first place. Suppression is not actually something we want to do, it's rough on the d-base and just generally isa a tool that is used as little as possible. So in order to prevent more material from needing to be suppressed Cla's talk page access was revoked. I am going to email BASC myself and ask them if there isn't something they can tell us about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not on BASC but I have read the emails that the ArbCom appeals list has been getting. Beeblebrox's timeline appears accurate; I'm not really sure there is anything more to say. Beeblebrox did the first suppression and block; Someguy1221 did the suppressions related to the unblock requests. The Audit Submcommittee has not been asked to look into the suppressions to my knowledge (they are on a separate mailing list which I am not on; if they have; it hasn't been reported to the Arbitration Committee as a whole). What is it you guys are looking for? NW (Talk) 19:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me, but when a prolific and productive editor here gets indeffed for allegedly outing a disruptive editor who is blocked from editing enwiki (and is very controversial elsewhere), when much if not all of that information appears to be available on Wikimedia sites (as pointed out by multiple people above), perhaps we'd like a little bit more than "*shrug* get him to email someone"? Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Beeblebrox was able to do suppression NW? — Ched :  ?  20:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, he's an oversighter. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I've been an oversighter since 2010. It is my understanding that AUSC would notify me if one of my suppression actions was being disputed, I have not gotten any such notification. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm.. I didn't realize that. My apologies. — Ched :  ?  20:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

More eyes?[edit]

Would it be useful to move this to somewhere more visible (i.e. WP:AN)? Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Look, I don't even consider myself involved in this situation any more. Cla needs to tel BASC they will abide by WP:OUTING. We don't need a drama fest to accomplish that, Cla just needs to send an email. They don't need to apologize or even say they agree with the policy, just that they will respect it in the future. A community discussion can't bring that about. Please don't make this a bigger deal, it is really a little deal with a simple solution, all it takes is a tiny little statement from Cla. Why they have not provided that yet is not something anyone but Cla can know. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it needs a drama-fest, merely that it may be useful to solicit input from editors and admins who may not have this page watchlisted and who may be unaware of what is a quite tricky issue. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Except, it's not a tricky issue. And your whole attitude that we should give "more valuable" editors extra latitude in violating Wikipedia:Harassment, as long as that harrassment is directed at less-vested contributors, leaves me gobsmacked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free not to put words into my mouth. I was suggesting that it would not be in Wikipedia's interest to lose such a valuable contributor in such circumstances which, whether you like it not, are disputed and if that is to be the case, we need a little more than the "tough" we have been given. It is also not unreasonable to point out the activities of the alleged subject of the harrassment at that point. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Frankly I don't think there will be much sympathy for the idea that we have two classes of contributor, "valuable" and "not valuable", and that the first category gets an exemption from conduct policies. Harassment is inexcusable, whoever perpetrates it, and it's frankly dismaying that some otherwise sensible editors seem to be keen to excuse it on the grounds that Cla68 is a valuable contributor / a fellow Wikipediocracy member / the target of the harassment deserved it / there's an R in the month, or whatever the favourite excuse is today. Really, this is quite straightforward: 1. Harassment should never be tolerated. 2. The privacy of every contributor to Wikipedia should be respected. 3. Nobody gets exempted from policies against harassment. Period. Those really aren't complicated principles. Prioryman (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that. You are quite correct in all of those three statements; however they would be relevant to this case only if you believe this is a straightforward case of outing. As I keep pointing out, though, this is disputed. Although having said that, it is not unknown on Wikipedia to look at editors' prior behaviour when deciding on sanctions - it is done regularly at ArbCom, and, indeed, by admins every day. Black Kite (talk)
TenOfAllTrades, I find it hard to believe that you would be "gobsmacked" by the idea that some contributors are more valuable than others. Not all editors are equal. There is a hierarchy here that is obvious to anyone who has spent any amount of time here. And there are editors who seem be afforded special protection because they are "good content contributors". None of this should surprise you in the least. I think the feeling here is that it would be a shame to lose a good editor simply because the blocking admin skipped over discussion and warning for what was not a clear case of outing (from my recollection of the original posting) and went straight to an indef block. I think we are agreed that Cla68 needs to affirm that they will not repeat the action, but it is in WP's best interest to unblock, which may not be the case for most blocks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Cla68. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Ched :  ?  21:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 reply[edit]

OK, being a person that has at times had difficulty with various Bureaucratic issues over the years, I took the liberty of emailing Cla68. I basically asked if there was anything I could do to help. This is the reply that I got.

"Good morning,
Sure, if you don't mind you could post on my talk page that I promise not to mention Russavia's real name on Wikipedia.  
Thank you,"

As we do have a User:Russavia, I don't see that this violates any policy. Hopefully this will help move things forward in some way. — Ched :  ?  22:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That's progress. But it is entirely possible to breach our wp:Outing policy without disclosing Russavia's real name, or indeed the real name of any other editor. We've had incidents in the past that involved links to people's phone numbers, or indeed links to people's real names. In the circumstances I would prefer that we have an assurance from Cla68 that whether or not he agrees with wp:Outing, in future he will comply with it. ϢereSpielChequers 22:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I note that Cla68 has worded his promise in a very lawyerly way. It would not have precluded his posting a link to the off-wiki outing discussion, which was the cause of his block, as he did not "mention Russavia's real name on Wikipedia" in the course of doing so. This is discouraging; it seems to indicate that he still does not think there was anything wrong about linking to off-wiki outing. WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment is very clear that "harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia." It also doesn't amount to a promise that he will abide by WP:OUTING for any editor other than Russavia. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, maybe we're getting somewhere. (thanks WSC). I didn't ask him any 20 questions, but this seems to be a reasonable follow-up, and I'll pass that along. I hate to sound like Arnold, but "I'll be back". — Ched :  ?  22:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply to WSC post from Cla68
"You can let them know that I promise not to link to the blog post on Wikipedia either. "

Ched :  ?  23:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

  • One additional follow-up, and then perhaps it's better to talk to Cla68 directly least I confuse matters in some fashion. Also from an email and with permission, Cla68 stated:
"By the way, 
I don't think I violated the outing policy.  
And, if allowed to, I will explain why on my talk page without saying or linking to Russavia's real name.
Thanks for your help."

Does this help in any way? I hope it does. — Ched :  ?  23:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll draw this colloquy to the Arbitration Committee's attention. For my part, I think it would be useful for Cla68 to state at this point that if unblocked, he will steer well clear on-wiki from any mention of an editor's real name or real-world identifying information, and any other conduct that could reasonably be considered "outing", regardless of whether he personally considers it to be "outing" or not. There will always be situations where users can disagree with the interpretation of the "outing" policy, but almost all of the time, the better course is to omit the information where it even arguably is a violation. And there is certainly no reason to repeat the information on-wiki when it's already been objected to and removed one or more times. (Incidentally, for a number of reasons I detest our use of the word "outing," but in all these years haven't been able to come up with a better term.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The better (and more accurate) term would probably be "doxing", since that's what seems to be at the heart of the concern behind the policy. YMMV, of course. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Brad, I think your suggestion is a bit off as more than a few editors contribute under their real name or otherwise freely make their name known. Hopefully, no one is going to suggest Cla68 cannot even mention their real names. The issue here is that it is apparent that Cla68 does not think he outed the editor in question and there is a split on that point. Using someone's real name when the editor has not explicitly stated his or her name on-wiki seems to be what is at issue.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely, in light of these communications, Cla68 should at least be allowed access to his talk page. In fact, I'm not sure what further objection there could be to unblocking him altogether. Everyking (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop lobbying. Cla68 can communicate with the relevant people, and can state unequivocally that he will stop publishing personally identifiable information about other editors. This is very easy for him to do, and has no downside whatsoever. Newyorkbrad, instead of "outing" you can use that term. An alternative, more concise term that would also be accurate is "dox" or "doxing". Jehochman Talk 00:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Has he not done so? Everyking (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion he has already done so, and I see no reason why he should not be unblocked. I've a mind to do just that. Blocks are preventative etc and recurrence has been prevented. Kevin (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Blocks on Wikipedia are intended to prevent disruption and it seems like Cla68 will no longer disrupt Wikipedia (in this way, heh). At a minimum, talk page access should be immediately restored, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Cla68 has posted this reply to Newyorkbrad's message above on wikipediocracy:

Since I still can't edit my talk page, I will respond to Newyorkbrad's comment here.

I can't accept your suggested condition. I have been editing Wikipedia fairly regularly (until recently) for seven years, and I don't have a history of "outing" people. As you should know, outing people on Wikipedia is allowed under certain conditions, and often takes place on the COI Noticeboard. Once I have a chance to give my side on this Russavia issue, either at the WP:AN board or in an RfC (I haven't decided which yet), I think it will be evident that what happened here was not clearly or expressly forbidden by the Outing policy. What you are suggesting would amount to me accepting a special sanction which, based on my history in this area, is not merited.

I think once my side is detailed, the case made by the blocking admins to justify the block of me and my talk page access will appear much less strong and firm than they are making it out to be. As a result, there may need to be changes made to the outing policy, oversight policy and procedures, and the checklists and best-practices guidelines that Wikipedia's admins presumably follow in cases like this and which are used to minimize mistaken or poorly-judged blocks.

Mathsci (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ygm[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Cla68. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
In case you were wondering, you should actually have an email from me now—I don't think it went through last night, as I didn't get a oopy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked[edit]

I have unblocked the account. As I said earlier, now that Cla68 has agreed not to repeat the connecting of Russavia with his real name, or to post any links to the blog entry, the reason for the block is moot. I take note of the post Cla68 made not agreeing to NYB's request, however I feel that as this block was for a specific incident, and the threat of recurrence has been removed, an agreement to cease a wider range of activities is not required, particularly given that this is not a long term course of conduct. Should editors feel that some kind of restriction is required, of course that may be taken up at the appropriate venue. Kevin (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. More to come. By the way, what's the deal with throwing editors off one's talk page, then showing up to bollocks them when they can't respond? What's up with that? Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. Ripberger (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I have trouble parsing the grammar. Who threw whom off and who showed up? It looks like the subject changes mid-sentence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Cla68 is talking about the all too familiar situation where an editor is discussed on their talk page, whilst being unable to participate due to being blocked. Kevin (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I would have guessed so. But then the question is merely rhetorical. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It's that one of the editors above most stridently urging that I remain blocked is an editor who in the recent past banned me from his user talk page. I know it's a normal part of Wikipedia culture for people to show up in situations like this to pile-on on editors they have had conflicts with in the past. But, to ban someone from your talk page, then post pejorative things about them on their talk page when they can't respond is really taking it to a new level. Cla68 (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Note that Cla68 did not agree to not repeat the outing; he has only agreed to avoid two of the simpler ways of doing it. Also note that Cla68 refused to agree to conditions suggested by Newyorkbrad, which would have amounted to a promise to avoid outing people. Cardamon (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Cardamon, why don't you wait for me to post the full account on my side of what happened? I will do so without repeating or linking to Russavia's real name. Cla68 (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you email that to somebody you trust on the Arbitration Committee or Oversight team and get their opinion whether what you want to post will be problematic. A bit of extra caution at this juncture will be worth a lot more than a bit of extra speed. Jehochman Talk 13:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Jehochman is right, Cla. Andreas JN466 13:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The last thing we want here is you to be re-blocked by an over-enthusiastic admin. Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll take this a step farther: Cla, if you want to argue that what you did in a specific case wasn't outing, you simply can't do that on public noticeboards, even if you carefully avoid actually saying the name. You can't, because if it turns out you were wrong and misinterpreting the policy, you'll have outed someone again and drawn exponentially more attention to it this time. I understand the impulse to prove that you didn't do anything wrong, but you can't go about it the way you're proposing; you need to either use private discussion venues (i.e. contact Arbcom and debate with them over whether X information is "outing"), or you need to have a completely unrelated-to-any-case discussion, after this matter has cooled down, about what WP:OUTING should say. I frankly think you should not have been unblocked until you understood this, but Kevin has now put you in a very awkward position of telling you it's ok to do something when not only isn't it ok generally, but doing that thing is very likely to get you in more trouble than you were in to begin with. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
No, what I have done is taken the view that Cla68 is unlikely to repeat those comments and posts re Russavia. I take no stand on whether Cla68 was right, wrong or whatever. That issue can now be debated in the full light of day. Kevin (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If we only hadn't made such a fuss about COI and expanded that policy to make unreasonable prosecutions of editors possible, editors wouldn't be so motivated to digg up private information about other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • As someone who tried to move this forward, I have to say that I also agree with Jehochman and those above as far as speaking privately to NYB, the Arbitration Committee, and/or Oversight team. I can appreciate Kevin's actions, so perhaps "discretion being the better part of valor", "don't cut your nose off to spite your face", etc. etc. It's hard to achieve anything if you can't edit. — Ched :  ?  18:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I find it incredibly ironic that Cla would have the nerve to complain about being kicked when their down considering that they were outing a user who is banned here but who blocked them [4] at Commons last year for harassing users over there in essentially the same fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless you know what the exact claim specifically concerned I think you should not be raising it. It was short in length so it is highly unlikely that it was in "essentially the same fashion" and was possibly not something that could get a person blocked here. To put it mildly, I do not have too much confidence in the conduct of a certain group of admins on Commons and Russavia would be among that group.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I note that Cla68's two edits for 6 April 2012, immediately before his block there, have been deleted.[5] The reason for the block was, in part, "linking to offline harassment". This looks very similar to what happened here. Prioryman (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd be very interested to know what was suppressed there, and, more interestingly, who suppressed it given the claim linked previously from a third party that Russavia was "blocking anyone who disagreed with him". Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Further to my post above, obviously there are wildly differing opinions on what should be done in the longer term, however the emergency, if it can be called that, has passed, and any future action can be debated calmly, and without a rush to judgement. Kevin (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I appreciate all the advice. Don't worry, I won't be including any links in my statement even though two of them have actually been linked to by another editor higher on this page and two of them took place on official WMF mailing lists. I will also be dissecting Beeblebrox's and SomeGuy's handling of this incident, which, IMO, were extremely amateurish and ham-handed. Finally, I will note that three editors who I have disagreed with in the past or have expressed a strong dislike for Wikipediocracy and its members, including someone who "banned" me from his talk page, have shown up here to try to influence administrators not to unblock me. I know that this kind of behavior seems to be part of Wikipedia's culture, but it needs to stop.
  • To start with, Beeblebrox and SomeGuy, could you please give me the link(s) to the checklist you followed when responding to the "outings" in your capacity as oversight admins? Also, could you please give me the link to the guideline(s) and best practices pages you use to assist you in critical thinking/decision making in responding to such incidents? Also, Beeblebrox, how did you become aware of the alleged "outing" on Ms Gardner's talk page? Did someone email you? If so, who? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • A quote from Wikipediocracy has been posted above, starting "Since I still can't edit my talk page, I will respond to Newyorkbrad's comment here." Did you write that? Do you still hold the views expressed in that text? Do you believe that outing is allowed under certain conditions? Do you intend to use Wikipedia for more discussion of the person who was outed? Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Outing is generally allowed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard although I'm not sure if I have ever posted there. If I did, it was awhile ago. I don't intend to focus the discussion on the person in question (who outed themselves, by the way). Instead, I will be focusing on the larger picture, such as how Wikipedia handles criticism (WP:BADSITES and the like), the chaotic, inefficient, amateurish, unequal, inconsistent way WP is administered, and how established editors with dishonest agendas gameplay to accomplish their goals. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq's questions seem like good faith ones. You've ignored most of them, including the key ones. Are you willing to answer them? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Johnuniq can ask follow-up questions. By the way, Demiurge, were you drawn to this discussion because of the connection to Wikipediocracy and do have strong feelings on the subject? I ask because it appears you violated WP:BLP in that diff. Do you feel you should have been blocked for that comment? Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You might review WP:COIN before claiming that outing is allowed. The notice includes

    Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.

Also, click "new section" at WP:COIN, or just view its editnotice. That shows

When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline.

Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I know what it says, and there is a fundamental conflict between what it says and the purpose of that board, which is designed to identify individuals and their supposed ulterior motives for editing Wikipedia. It is one of the most obvious dichotomies of Wikipedia that I know of. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • In view of the outing and your just-stated view, my questions above are quite reasonable, and the fact that their core remains unanswered suggests that you have no intention of avoiding mention of the outed editor—mentions that may compound the outing already performed. Let's reduce this to the simplest issue: Do you undertake to never mention the outed editor at Wikipedia (other than in response to issues that others have raised somewhere like Arbcom)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Since that editor is not indeffed, but subject to a fixed-term block, by asking him to forswear any mention of the editor you are essentially asking for Cla68 to submit to a voluntary interaction ban. I do not think there is any need to compel Cla68 to agree to such a term.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, WP:OUTING applies everywhere, but, like most rules on WP, it isn't always enforced. It is often violated at WP:COIN without any repercussions. I violated it very recently when I identified an account as a sockpuppet of another account (which happens to be the real name of the editor). I wasn't blocked or warned, nor should I have been, but it was technically a violation and such violations happen frequently in sockpuppetry cases. I'm not defending Cla68's actions, but let's not pretend that outing always results in sanctions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If X (the outed editor) returns to Wikipedia there will be plenty of people who will monitor X's actions, and Cla68's attention would not be required for that. My above question is whether Cla68 will undertake to never mention X (or anything relating to X's situation as outlined in the outing, except if raised by someone else at Arbcom). If X and Cla68 happen to edit the same article, naturally they can and should discuss the article—the question is whether Cla68 will discuss the editor. It is not relevant whether some people think that X was not outed, or that Cla68 should not have been blocked for outing X because OTHERSTUFF—what the community deserves to hear is whether there is an undertaking to not repeat anything like the incident in question. Normally my question would be resolved before unblocking, and it now appears likely that the question will be evaded because no one is compelled to do anything. Nevertheless, it should go on the record whether Cla68 agrees to not mention X as a person (it would be fine to say that X was edit warring, or adding undue text, or similar). Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevin's unblock of User:Cla68[edit]

Kevin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unilaterally reversed a block placed by two oversighters relating to the repeated posting of personal information. Kevin failed to obtain agreement for the unblocking from either the oversighters or the Arbitration Committee prior to doing so. Accordingly, Kevin is temporarily desysopped in accordance with Level II procedures for removing administrative tools. The unblock of Cla68 (talk · contribs) is to be reversed until Cla68's appeal is addressed by the Arbitration Committee.

  • Support: Carcharoth, Coren, Courcelles, Hersfold, David Fuchs, SilkTork, Timotheus Canens
  • Oppose: Newyorkbrad
  • Recused: Kirill Lokshin, NuclearWarfare
  • Not voting: AGK, Risker, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned
  • Inactive: Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Because Kevin's continued admin status is clearly such a risk to the project, right? A warning not to do that again just wouldn't be enough. Go straight to Jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Freekevin.jpg

Hex (❝?!❞) 07:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

But he's not blocked.  Roger Davies talk 08:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
He is however de-sysopped 'pending investigation'. 'Free Kevin from persecution and wikipolitics' might be more accurate, but doesnt work so well on a banner. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
After deciding that the 1st use of the block/unblock privilege in nearly 3 years should be to unilaterally overturn two Oversight member block reviews. It's not like he was using the tools everyday and desysopping would affect the community. --DHeyward (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
As I have already pointed out at the other discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#General discussion, there was nothing in Kevin's actions to necessitate action of this grade, which implies that his continued access to the sysop tools is an immediate danger to the project. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
As the blocking policy at the time Kevin undid the block had no restriction on doing so, it was within his judgement and remit as an administrator to undo an indef block if the user convinced him he was not going to repeat the offence. That ARBCOM are now seeking to re-write the blocking policy by passing a motion to justify their de-sysopping is beyond stupidity. What should have happened is they tell Kevin 'Dont do that again' then opened up a discussion to go through it. As it stands Cla has said he wouldnt post the offending info again (despite there being far from consensus that what he did was outing as per the outing policy) and he is still blocked. I assume Kevin has said to Arbcom he wouldnt re-unblock if they wanted to wheel-war the block back, and he has had his tools removed 'pending investigation'. An investigation that is going on behind closed doors while arbcom rushes to make the blocking policy reflect their actions after the fact. This stinks to high heaven, where is the immediate danger that requires either Cla stay blocked or Kevin lose tools? There is none. And frankly every arb who voted in favour of this needs to take a long hard look at themselves and their ethics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You are incorrect that there was no restriction. The block text states: "malicious WP:OUTING, please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team". IRWolfie- (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
In my parlance "please" indicates a non-binding request, rather than an unequivocal order.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A totally baseless and disgraceful decision. The block was never properly justified in the first place, and Cla68 had addressed concerns to the satisfaction of all sane observers. Everyking (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanity is a relative thing, and not always easy to judge simply from one's edits. Unless I'm missing something, Cla68 was unwilling to fully agree to my earlier suggestion that he say that "whether or not he agrees with wp:Outing, in future he will comply with it." That leads me to suspect both that the block was justified and that the unblock was unjustified. I'm not an oversighter so I'm not privy to the information that would lead me to judge the initial block for myself, but I also take some comfort from the fact that we have an audit committee, if anyone really thinks the block isn't supported by policy then they would be the people to go to. I'm sympathetic to Cla68's view that sometimes reporting a conflict of interest should justify infringing the outing policy, and I might even support a policy change to that effect. However where I differ from Cla68 is that I'd counsel complying with current policy until a new policy can be agreed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thats kind of the problem, he did agree to do that, which is why Kevin lifted the block. However apparently arbcom have found thats its not a normal admins call to lift indef blocks by functionaries when the person has agreed to not repeat the offence that got them an indef block. Hence why they have re-blocked Cla, removed Kevins mop, and are now retroactively passing motions to justify it under policy. Its gone way beyond the original block at this point, so thats pretty much a waste of time discussing it as any attempt to discuss the dubious nature of it gets rev-del. Look at the history of this page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
There's actually been no discussion removed other than the removal of the reposted offending link again. (And the rev-del/suppression only hid the previous versions that contained that link - it did not remove anything from the current talk page) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have used 'shut down' rather than rev-del. I was referring more to elsewhere than this specific page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, understood -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
@Only in death. I'm pretty sure that Cla68 was not agreeing to generally comply with the policy but instead making some limited commitments re one fellow editor. If he subsequently agreed to comply with the policy then I'd be interested in a link to that. I don't know whether the difference between Cla68's initial response and my suggestion was intentional or not, but I would certainly want clarification from him before supporting an unblock. ϢereSpielChequers 09:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You might be waiting awhile, he cant talk at the moment as when they put the block back they also reinstated the removal of talk page access. Excessive given his commitment not to repost the problem info. However his point was not that he wouldnt comply with policy, it was that (in his opinion) what he did didnt violate policy, as such a commitment not to do that specific thing again should be more than enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I suspect he has other channels of communication in addition to his talkpage. It seems to me there was a difference of opinion amongst those who participated in this discussion. Some like you saw his commitments as adequate, others, including myself, weren't happy that he only gave a commitment not to do certain types of edits re one individual and wasn't willing to give a broad commitment to comply with the outing policy. Regardless of the CU angle I would be uncomfortable seeing an unblock of someone blocked for malicious outing unless they committed to comply with the Outing policy. ϢereSpielChequers 23:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Well yes, your use of 'malicious' there is telling. Thats a subjective judgement. And depressingly we cant discuss that in detail because to do so would require revealing things that have been oversighted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
That he was blocked for malicious outing is simply a statement of fact. Whether it was outing and whether it was malicious may well have been decisions that require subjective judgment - though not from me as I didn't do the block and am not an oversighter. Yes that is a doubly awkward aspect to this - I don't personally know whether it was malicious or whether I'd agree with the oversighters if I had access to the same info as they had. But I take some comfort in that we have an audit committee that exists and could be appealed to if those who do know the full story think the Oversighters involved made a mistake. So all I can do is treat this as a case where someone has been blocked for malicious outing, and in that case I think it important that before we let someone back we get a full commitment that they agree to comply with the outing policy. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply of Cla68 to ArbCom[edit]

About 10 hours ago, the ArbCom emailed me to discuss what had happened and to try to find a way for me to be unblocked. I told them that no matter what we agreed to, I could not accept an unblock until Kevin was resysopped. They wrote back and defended their decision to desysop him and advised me not to tie my situation to his. The following is what I sent to them in reply:

"It's the principle of integrity. Kevin thought he was doing the right thing. Even if you disagree with it, you were wrong to desysop him over it, when you could have just given him a warning as there was no threat to wheel war with you. He did what he thought was right and for you all to publicly embarrass and sanction him over it is one of the worst decisions I've ever seen the ArbCom make.

Remember, I hadn't heard anything back from you all for four days. No one outside of you guys knew if you were discussing it or not. I've heard a lot of stories of people emailing you with ban appeals then never hearing anything back. It wasn't Kevin who emailed me and started things moving again, it was another admin (check my talk page). After that admin posted my responses on my talk page, Kevin apparently took the initiative to resolve the matter, because there was no sign of progress from your end. Then, you guys have the nerve to desysopp him over it when all you had to do was reverse it and ask him to back off if you disagreed with it, not punish him.

There is no way I could accept having my block lifted when he remains under sanction for trying, in good faith, to help things out. So, I guess we're through here for the time being. Until Kevin is resysopped, I don't have anything more to say to you guys."


——Posted pursuant to the request of Cla68 published at Wikipediocracy. Kablammo (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I see not much has improved in the area of sanity of Wikipedia policy and its enforcement since the BADSITES era. "Outing" remains the third rail of Wikipedia editing, even when it comes to information that's been posted publicly elsewhere (and attempts to suppress it trigger the Streisand Effect). *Dan T.* (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a long-time observer of wikipolitics, and being merely descriptive here - the first rule of Arbcom is that nobody disrespects Arbcom. Even some of the most abusive admins, secure in the power of their clique (not cabal), have met their wikidoom by treating Arbcom with the cavalier contempt which is tolerated when meted out to the wikipeons (aka "wikilove"). Anyway, this is why Wikipedia fascinates me. Is the Streisand Effect anything other than a battle-cry of victor's justice? That is, when can one practically marginalize information to a group, and at what cost? The answer isn't the trivial "never", as shown by the cases which do *not* blow up. Would Wikipedia suddenly find it could have completely complied with any anti-linking provisions of the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act if someone had simply posted on pirate sites a list of the identities of Wikipedia editors? (not exactly unimaginable, given the attitude that treats revealing those identities as very much like copyright infringement, in terms of violation of an information right). Is it just a matter of whose ox is being gored? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting questions. You're right that the Streisand effect isn't inevitable; sometimes suppressed information really does stay suppressed. The distinction probably depends to a large extent on the "meme-worthiness" of the information to become something everybody wants to talk about and spread further, as well as some dumb luck of what happens by chance to spread vs. damping down. If the info is something that makes everybody just say "ho hum" and get bored, it might not spread further (I can recall once or twice in the Marvel/DC comic book universes that a writer made a twist on the old trope about the vital importance of preserving superhero secret identities by having a hero get unmasked and nobody caring because the secret identity is nobody anyone knows or cares about in the first place). Wiki-outings tend to fall in the "ho hum" category as far as the vast majority of the public (and even most Wiki-insiders) are concerned; who really cares what real name is behind some silly wiki-username? Thus, such outings would be likely to fade away in apathy (with or without an organized attempt to suppress them) except for the "joker" in the situation: the existence of a "critic community" consisting of a handful of individuals who are just as fervent in their efforts to dig up and spread dirt about Wikipedia as the WikiCliques are at protecting it; this means that the slightest whiff of such a disclosure (and a coverup attempt on-wiki about it) leads to a whole flurry of message-board postings, blog entries, and even sometimes articles at quasi-mainstream news outlets, giving the "forbidden information" (and making it easily Googleable), turning any further suppression attempts on-wiki into something akin to King Canute ordering the tides to back down. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla's talk page access[edit]

"do not unblock without the permission of the arbitration committee [sic]", says the block log. But restoring talk page access is not unblocking. The newly-altered blocking policy does not specify any punishment for doing so, even though it contains an instruction to not alter a block. This poor wording is symptomatic of the fait accompli nature of the recent change to policy.

Administrators should not undo or alter any block that is specifically identified as an "oversight" block in the action summary without the consent of an oversighter. ... Unblocking without consent of an oversighter may result in removal of permissions. [Emphasis added]

Suppose an administrator considers Cla to have given enough of a commitment to performing no further "outing", or "doxing", or whatever you call it - note that I am not expressing any opinion on whether what Cla did here qualifies as that - and restores his talk page access. As it stands, there is no policy basis for that administrator to be summarily blocked or desysopped. Any such change to policy needs to be enacted through the normal channels of consensus-based policy formation.

Therefore, whether to restore Cla's talk page access is a decision that can be made by any administrator, who may decide whether Cla's ability to post here will result in an "extreme case... of abuse", described in the protection policy as the only situation in which removing talk page access is necessitated. — Hex (❝?!❞)  FREE KEVIN  10:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I would challenge the competency of an admin who would try and use that sort of loophole. It's near the same text as WP:CUBL, and it too doesn't mention altering either.The original checkuser text [6] didn't mention any repercussions IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment for Cla68[edit]

Cla68, you are surely smart enough to know that if posting certain content is forbidden on Wikipedia (e.g. copyright infringement, harassment, slander), it is equally forbidden to post a link on Wikipedia to that same content hosted elsewhere for the purpose of getting around the restriction. This is not the same as WP:BADSITES. You can't make a link from Wikipedia to forbidden content irrespective of where that content is located. In the converse, you can link to a site that hosts bad content, as long as you don't link directly to that bad content. (We can and do link to The Pirate Bay, but we can't link to warez hosted on Pirate Bay.) Would you please decide whether you can agree to this restriction, in which case you should be unblocked, or state that you do not agree, in which case I am pretty sure you would be banned by the community. Jehochman Talk 13:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that Cla is going to be banned, but even if he is, he would not be banned by the community. He'd be banned by a few sickos like yourself, russavia and demiurge1000. 31.193.141.239 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
What an interesting selection! A more diverse triumvirate of "sickos", I can't even begin to imagine! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it's better to have a policy that says that you can't make statements that amount to harassment, outing etc., however you do it (directly or indirectly via posting links etc.). Otherwise an editor who is being harassed can't post links to point that out either. As with most things the context matters. This would mean in this particular case , Cla or anyone else shouldn't be allowed to even point to Wikipediocracy's main site in the context of any outing article that is hosted there, while the outed editor could post a direct link to the problematic article itself if he/she wishes to do so. Count Iblis (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Count Iblis, you made an interesting point, but what if somebody is to link not to Wikipediocracy, but to Google news search result? 71.198.250.59 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC) (note: edited to remove a link. re-adding the link will result in page protection. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC))
We do have that policy. See WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING and WP:GAME. Taken together these forbid that sort of "cleverness". No additional policies are needed. Note that the policy is related to the content and how it is being used (context), not the hostname of the where the content is located (WP:BADSITES). Jehochman Talk 16:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
And one more: Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. Jehochman Talk 16:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. Then given that this issue still exploded, the policies need to provide for a better framework for dealing with this sort of a problem (like when to block etc.), otherwise ArbCom and the few Admins who are most trigger happy end up re-writing the blocking policy, legalizing their preferred way of dealing with problems. Count Iblis (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Sad, isn't it? Eventually that rewritten policy will end up being cited as law by people who weren't party to the events that caused it. WP:ARBCOM says that "the arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat" and WP:BURO says "written rules do not themselves set accepted practice" - the last few days have shown that to be hogwash. ArbCom is able to create motions that admins use as justification for their actions, then other admins alter policy to retroactively implement those motions, then other admins perform actions on the basis of that policy. It's a travesty. — Hex (❝?!❞)  FREE KEVIN  13:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I am bit tired of this sort of comments. Cla68 clearly and unambiguously violated WP:OUTING, then he did it again after being blocked for it. The block was valid and correct, and Cla68 brought it upon himself. And I see him in this page trying to wikilawyer "could you please give me the link(s) to the checklist you followed when responding to the "outings" in your capacity as oversight admins?". What the heck. If you post a link to an outing webpage, it gets oversighted and you get blocked. It's that simple. No amount of wikilawyering is going to change that, Arbcom might behave a bit stupidly sometimes, but they are not blind. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I wish that people would take off their Wikipedia hats for a moment and provide a common sense, real-world answer as to why Cla68 is blocked. Forget Wikipedia policy and just tell why what Cla68 did was such an egregious action. Enforcing a foolish rule only makes the enforcers look foolish. I tried to understand what people are thinking with my questions on the WP:Harassment talk page, but no one has yet to explain why an individual pointing out obvious and public information (given willingly by the "victim") is a villain. I'm completely baffled. I don't understand what's happening at all. (Just a reminder to everyone: Cla68 can't post or respond to any of this on his talkpage barring some deal with ArbCom. I'm not even sure if he appreciates his talkpage being used the way it is now.) Ripberger (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I wish that people would put on their common sense, real world hats for a moment and realise that if you participate on a website and then deliberately and flagrantly breach the rules of the website then you are likely to find yourself not using the website any more. Try it on Facebook, YouTube, or any other website which I'm sure you will consider to be brimming with freedom and wonderfulness. You won't get far. Why not just grow up and not engage in harassment and outing to begin with? That's a really easy way to continue participating in the website of your choice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Demiurge1000, of course Facebook, YouTube, or any other website block users as well as wikipedia does, except wikipedia does it differently. It does it publicly even, if a person was editing under his real name. Have you seen banned users list on YouTube, or maybe you've seen lovely templates on user pages of Facebook users, or do you know about any other site that allows anonymous users as yourself to make false accusations against others in so called "community ban" discussions, accusations that are not supported by any evidences? Facebook has problems with bulling, but it tries to deal with it to the best of its abilities. Wikipedia on the other hand is a bully's paradise, and it does absolutely nothing to shut them up. Even, when somebody wants to leave Wikipedia, he often is not allowed to do it. If a user was banned or something, his user page would still display templates even after this person dies. It is what makes wikipedia one the sickest site on the Net. 198.211.103.252 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree wioth the last part of that post though, this endless bickering here in not helping anyone, including Cla. This situation is in ArbCom's hands now, it is not going to be resolved on this talk page. The best course of action for all parties is to disengage here. If you feel for some reason that you must comment, comment to the committee. This is just making a mess of a blocked users page for no good purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
At last, a well-reasoned, logical statement by an uninvolved neutral observer. Bravo.StaniStani  03:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a simple policy. Regardless of where an editors identity is known or "outed" or "doxed", Wikipedia is not the place to further that outing. Wikipedia is separate from Google or WO or WR or any other website. Notable people that have articles about them are encyclopedic. Editors are not. Because some other website jumped off the bridge doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow them. Regardless of what any other site does or says doesn't change the obligation of Wikipedia not to be its forum. This is no different than many news organizations that simply do not cover or comment on the scandals of employees but other news organizations may cover it. Wikipedia should not be the forum that validates outside sites that "out" or disparage editors simply because they are editors. It does not matter what the site is. The AP might be a great source for news but an article about an editor might be entirely unencyclopedic and prohibited as an article that "doxes" an editor. That's exactly what we have here. Does anybody really think a "Kohs" article in "The Examiner" is valid content as it relates to WP? No, the shouldn't and it's not because the "The Examiner" is a "BADSITE," only that the Kohs article is without value. WO may have some content that is appropriate to link to, but an article that has a sole purpose to expose an editor is not. Obtusely ignoring this distinction and repeatedly violating the letter and spirit of the policy is grounds for blocking and banning editors. Enabling the editor with administrative action is grounds for desysopping. This should be obvious. --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Essjay certainly is notable. See Essjay controversy. A policy may be "simple," but that does not mean it is a good policy. Essjay certainly didn't appreciate being "outed," and yet Wikipedia has an entire article about him and his real name. If the "outed" user's name who caused this debacle gets used in the New York Times or another WP:RS news site, what should we do then? If I understand you correctly, Wikipedia should not even have an article about Essjay despite his "outing" and behavior being reported in the mainstream media? Ripberger (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You might also have mentioned the John Siegenthaler controversy, which also discusses an editor's real-life identity. But neither of those cases are similar to this one. Both involved a controversy on Wikipedia which resulted in major mainstream media converage, making them legitimate subjects for discussion here. In the case of Kohs' article on Examiner.com, those factors simply don't come into play. Kohs is not a journalist; he's a banned former editor who is obsessed with undermining Wikipedia at every possible opportunity. Examiner.com isn't mainstream media, despite Kohs' laughable claims; it's a glorified blog with no editorial control, which is why it's blacklisted here as a source. The topic of the article is pretty much irrelevant and uninteresting to anyone outside Wikipedia, and frankly to most Wikipedians; it doesn't have "legs", as an editor would say. The origins of the Examiner piece aren't to do with anything that happened on Wikipedia; it's merely an extension of a harassment campaign carried out on Wikipediocracy. In other words, this Examiner.com article is just a stunt by a fringe individual with an axe to grind, not a legitimate topic of journalistic interest, which is why the question you raised isn't likely to need an answer - nobody outside Wikipediocracy's tiny sad circle of Wikipedia-haters has any interest in the identity of the editor whom Cla68 outed. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd argue that outing Essjay primarily through public posts on WP with links to WR should be blockable offense. Handling it through private channels would have been perfectly acceptable. Other than wikipediaholics, the Essjay encyclopedia article has no scholarly value. As for WR/WO, even the blind squirrel finds the occasional nut but that one nut isn't the basis through which we justify poking squirrels in the eye with a stick. Without oversight privileges, checkuser privileges, etc, we have no idea how many other editors were privately and quietly banned to protect their privacy. Nor do we know how many people have privately contacted WP to have the BLP article corrected. It would be a much better place if people would have the maturity to quietly handle privacy matters privately instead of creating public drama that chases away editors. I'd also point out that Essjay is a primary example that no one is too valuable or too experienced to be banned. Our standards of behavior have fallen sharply since Essjay. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Essjay is not banned, and as Mr. Wales stated even after Essjay was exposed: "EssJay has always been, and still is, a fantastic editor and trusted member of the community. He has been thoughtful and contrite about the entire matter, and I consider it settled. " By the way why this important statement is missing from Essjay controversy?71.202.123.95 (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
And the WR article outing him is actually linked as a reference on the article about the controversy; I can recall there was much fighting over that during the BADSITES Wars, but it ended up with the link in place now. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Without blaming the victim, the relevant policies should make it clear that to guard the privacy of editors, we should take common sense measures like use a username that is different from usenames we use on other sites, etc.. It is not any different from the fact that you do need to lock your car and home. If you don't and you get burgled, the insurance won't pay anything of they find out that thieves could just walk into your home. Count Iblis (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of a crappy insurance policy you've got there. Mine only cares that I am willing to fill out a police report that someone stole from me and I will help them recover it. I could leave my front door open and blowing in the wind and it matters not one iota. Stealing is stealing. Same with credit cards. If the server decides to steal the number, I am not lashed to the deck and whipped for giving them the card. The thieves bear all responsibility, not the victim. --DHeyward (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Though, the price of a policy usually relates in some way to the degree of risk of a claim, meaning that if the insurance company has a way of knowing you're tempting burglars by leaving the place wide open, they're likely to jack up your premiums; this is simply a matter of actuarial logic, not responsibility. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Purple Heart[edit]

For grace under fire on Wikipedia, you are hereby awarded this Purple Heart.

Sincerely,

TomStar81 (Talk) 05:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we please unblock Cla68 already? This is completely ridiculous and ArbCom's inability to get its shit together in a timely fashion is not an excuse for this to persist.Volunteer Marek 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's too late to complain now, you should have voted for the ArbCom Reform Party in the elections. Count Iblis (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This comment was quite unhelpful. I'll try to AGF and accept it as an expression that the situation is unfortunate, but the literal statement urges someone to take action that have already lead to the desysop of one admin. Arbcom has a lot on their plate, there is no emergency, and frankly some of the crap on the plate exists precisely because someone took advice like this to heart.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
More likely, if these sorts of incidents were to repeat themselves a few more times, ArbCom would resign and Jimbo would set up a new system. The problem that we have now started a few years ago when the wrong decision was made when Admin Trusilver wasn't allowed to use his own good judgement when unblocking Brews Ohare. Brews was blocked for voting in the de-Admining RFC. Sandstein had blocked Brews for violating a ban on doing anything outside of article space, that restriction was implemented due to fellow editors objecting to Brews being active in essays including mine own essay. Basically, he was dragged to AE every week or so, for "disruption", even though the people he was actually editng with didn't complain. The dynamcs was that new restrictions were added and then these were extremely broadly interpreted leading to new violations and new restrictions, culmunating in a block for merely participating in a community RFC while the original issue had been too much talk at the speed of light talk page. Trusilver had taken the time to review everything and he saw just how ridiculous this was.
The desysopping of Trusilver meant that an Admin acting in good faith cannot use his own judgment. Now, while later an appeals system was set of for AE, that still doesn't work well. E.g. William was blocked by Beeblebrox for doing nothing more than what all topic banned editors were allowed to do,. It used to be the case that you could notify on your talk page that an article has been vandalized or that some bad editing was going on. If you left it to simple notifications that serves to notify editors to just take a look, nothing more, that was tolerated as this is in the interest of maintaining Wikipedia. However, William was blocked for two weeks and at AE no consensus was reached for the appeal. Then ArbCom came with a new ruling that had the effect of changing the policy regarding topic bans.
So, once the decision was taken by ArbCom a few years back to strictly enforce rules despite what WP:IAR says, things have evolved from bad to worse. The natural end point of this all is a collapse of this system that doesn't put Wikipedia first. Count Iblis (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Huh? Whatever this stuff is that you're talking about, it appears to be only faintly related to the matter at hand. May I suggest that you take it somewhere else, rather than using Cla68's talk page as a soapbox for your position on some random conflicts you've been involved with. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The Trusilver case is cited in every AE block notice. The Trusilver vs. Sandstein case (decided by ArbCom motion) set the precedent for Admins not allowed to overturn AE blocks, regardless of how unreasonable that block is. While most people know about this precedent, few know what the issue that Trusilver looked into was all about. Count Iblis (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla's talk page access 2[edit]

Death and the Editor, Wilhelm Werner von Zimmern, c. 1540. Death and a virtuous editor (bearing the standard of the Consilium Arbitratus) indulge in a spot of jolly dancing upon the grave of a blocked editor.

Hi, I've received an email from Cla, where he asked me to post this: "Hello all. ArbCom has delined my request to restore talk page access. Anyway, I won't be asking ArbCom if my block can be lifted until the situation with MZMcbride's block is resolved." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, he's been unblocked now, so can somebody please resolve the issue with Cla68 too so that this drama can be brought to an end? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
(Actually, the drama is never going to be brought to an end until Wikipedia dies altogether, but can Cla at least be unblocked?) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This came up on my talk page (shockingly). I haven't really been following this talk page very closely, but I assume Cla68 knows how to contact me, should he need or want to. It seems that a few specific Wikipediocracy links are disallowed here, but on the whole, links to Wikipediocracy (its blog, wiki and forum) are currently allowed. Assuming Cla68 is willing to refrain from posting the approximately four disallowed links, I think we can immediately unblock. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You'd think, but the ambiguity of Arbcom's new fiat create a chilling effect on administrators. Basically, I'm disinclined right now to undo a block by anyone with the 'oversight' right because it's unclear what an oversight block is, when it's used, and how it's identified. Is Cla's reblock an oversight block or is it now an Arbcom block? Who the hell knows?--v/r - TP 15:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
My impression of the comments posted earlier by Newyorkbrad was that Cla68 was reblocked because he hasn't given assurances that he won't out people again, including by posting links to off-wiki outings. That's a wider issue than promising not to repost the "four disallowed links" and it has nothing to do with whether any other editor was blocked or desysopped. Cla68 could have given that assurance any time but has apparently chosen martyrdom instead. Prioryman (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that this is a pattern of behavior for Cla68. Is it?

I honestly am not super-familiar with Cla68's past editing here, but I did a quick scan and it seems like this is his first block for anything outing-related. Is this most recent block for allegedly outing an editor an isolated incident here on the English Wikipedia? If so, then this really is just about four links. If not, do you have links to previous incidents, discussions, etc.? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been said that he had issues involving outing several years ago. I wasn't part of them, so I have no knowledge of whether or not this is true. I did, however, butt heads with him in the events leading up to WP:ARBCC and after. I found him incredibly stubborn with a POINTy streak (not so different from you, or Kevin, or me once upon a time), but a generally respectable and honorable person. If he gave his word that he understood the outing policy and would not violate it again, I would believe him. The WordsmithTalk to me 06:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
MZ, according to uninvolved admins at WT:ACN, there have been previous high-profile incidents; he was reprimanded by ArbCom in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Cla68 and he failed an RFA earlier after he linked to off-wiki content attacking SlimVirgin and several other editors. From my own personal experience, I had to ban him from my talk page after he began harassing me with false claims about my travel expenses that had originally been made off-wiki. If there's a common thread in all of this, it's that he seems to have a rather vigilante attitude, which certainly comes across in his comments in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-03-04/News and notes where he seems to think that off-wiki attack sites are all that's preventing Wikipedia from becoming "corrupt and incorrigible" and are instrumental in exposing "cover-ups". Quite frankly, whatever value he may have had as a content contributor has been dissipated by his apparent wish to act as some kind of wiki-cop. Until he drops that approach he's likely to get himself into trouble again. Prioryman (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I'm having difficulty articulating myself. I think:
  1. Cla68 should be able to post to his own talk page (remove the talk page access revocation), assuming he agrees not to out or harass anyone (which it seems he assured Kevin that he would, from Kevin's unblock summary); and
  2. this should not be an ArbCom block.
You make some very reasonable points, however I think the community can handle this. If there's no administrator willing to unblock Cla68, it automatically becomes a community ban. For right now, I'd like to see Cla68 be able to edit his own talk page (to defend himself, post a public unblock request, apologize to people he's hurt, etc.) and I'd like to see this be treated as a normal administrator block. The current situation (locking someone out completely and declaring that nobody can unblock) seems pretty extreme here. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
See under #Unblocked above. Cla68 agreed to not mention Russavia's real name again or link to off-wiki posts mentioning it, but he didn't agree to Newyorkbrad's suggestion about avoiding outing altogether: "I think it would be useful for Cla68 to state at this point that if unblocked, he will steer well clear on-wiki from any mention of an editor's real name or real-world identifying information, and any other conduct that could reasonably be considered "outing", regardless of whether he personally considers it to be "outing" or not." [7] Bear in mind that if Kevin hadn't unblocked, this would still be an oversighter block, and as far as I know no member of the oversight team - including the two oversighters who blocked Cla68, Beeblebrox and Someguy1221 - has said yet that they're OK with unblocking. I would guess that ArbCom is now waiting for Cla68 to give the assurances that Newyorkbrad was asking for. It's not much of an imposition to agree not to out people, so I really don't understand why Cla68 apparently won't commit to that. Prioryman (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm going to revisit this later, but my thinking right now is that the current block (including talk page access revocation) can stay (point 1), but I'd like to pursue a reblock (point 2). Not an {{unblock}}, but a {{reblock}}, which would keep the block settings, but change the block summary to be a standard administrator block. I'm not sure if there's a process in place for this. Do you know?

Assuming there's no process in place, my thinking is that it would involve some kind of community discussion followed by an uninvolved admin making a determination as to whether there's consensus to make the block no longer an ArbCom block and instead make the block a standard administrator block. This discussion would not be about whether or not to unblock Cla68, it would be about whether this should be an administrator block or an ArbCom block. Perhaps a week comment period? I'm not sure.

This is just my thinking at the moment. As I said, I'll revisit this later, hopefully after I've gotten some sleep. :-) Thanks for all the insightful replies here. They've been very helpful to me. I vaguely remembered the SV case and some other bits, but after reading your comments, I have a clearer picture of the overall situation, I think. As I said, we may end up in a community ban situation, but that can't happen currently. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Quite frankly, whatever value he may have had as a content contributor has been dissipated by his apparent wish to act as some kind of wiki-cop." Irony overload. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Vigilantism isn't an attractive quality, whatever an editor's record as a content contributor. If Cla68 can drop the vigilantism and go back to producing content I think there would be no need to block him and far less drama all round. Prioryman (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that SilkTork and WTT have both said they thought they were on the path to approving Cla68's appeal, it seems odd that they haven't taken the step of unblocking him yet. I will say I don' think Russavia was outed in the first place (Russavia gave out his real name in connection with his username far too frequently to have any reasonable claim of privacy regarding it) so the block is mistaken in that respect and it was mistaken to characterize it as deliberate and malicious as it most certainly was not either.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Keeping somebody blocked for the thoughtcrime of linking to external criticism sites certainly doesn't do anything to disabuse anybody of the notion that Wikipedia's insiders tend to engage in coverups of scandal and criticism. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason he's still blocked isn't about linking to your outing website. It seems to be because he hasn't given the assurances that Prioryman mentioned. If he gave the assurances, then that would get the ball rolling, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I recall that he gave assurances that seemed satisfactory to most of us, and one admin decided to unblock him as a result. Shouldn't this already be over? Everyking (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
And it's not "my" website anyway. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be forgetting that it was an oversight block that wasn't supposed to be lifted without the approval of the oversight team, and the admin who decided to override that was temporarily desysopped as a result. His views on the matter are irrelevant because he wasn't supposed to be the decision-maker in the first place. It's not "over" because neither the oversighters nor the arbitrators have indicated that Cla68's assurances (assuming he has given any beyond those he gave about Russavia) are satisfactory. Really, the ball is in his court. Prioryman (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I recall that the first assurance had so many holes it didn't prevent much of anything, and subsequent assurances seemed more lawyer-like than heartfelt, leaving the impression that an attempt was made to comply narrowly yet leave some openings. I hope my impression was wrong, and simply appeared that way, but I understand why ArbCom would choose to tread very carefully. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Since somebody above cited the years-old ArbCom case involving Cla, it might be relevant to bring up the Evidence section from that case, in which I refuted several allegations by JzG regarding Cla getting in trouble for "attack-site links", etc., by noting how his side ultimately prevailed in many of those disputes. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If Cla is unblocked under a less than perfect agreement, he will still be closely watched. It is unlikely that he could get away with any outing of editors by trying to argue that it was not outing using some complicated argument. That's why I only see advantages to getting him unblocked, he can either contribute constructively to Wikipedia or get blocked again. Also the time he spends here is time not spend on Wikipediocracy :) . Count Iblis (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I would turn it around the other way, to be honest. If Cla is only willing to offer a "less than perfect agreement", why should he be unblocked? It's not as if he's been asked to do anything onerous. All Newyorkbrad asked for was an assurance that Cla wouldn't out people and wouldn't link to off-wiki outing. That's no more than is expected of the rest of us. If Cla isn't willing to give that assurance, what possible legitimate reason could there be for not doing so? Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It might be expected of us, but nobody is asked to give that assurance so why should Cla ?  TUXLIE  16:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The obvious answer is that Cla68 apparently outed an individual. It is reasonable to ask for such an assurance when one has already violated the rules. Cla68 seems to sometimes take a vigilante attitude against people. For example, he outed my TallMagic account and hounded me to the point where he even lied to arbcom about me having a conflict of interest on an article to try to get me banned.Bill Huffman (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
What Bill said. Newyorkbrad wouldn't have had any reason to ask for an assurance otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 speaking from outside the wire[edit]

As requested on Wikipediocracy. Kevin (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't decided the format and forum yet. By the way, I don't find this statement to be completely accurate. I have had one email from the ArbCom after I resumed contact, which basically said, "Stand by, we're discussing it and it may take a few weeks." I replied by letting them know that I currently have an outstanding Good Article review which took place while I was blocked and thus haven't been able to respond to yet, and that I was in the middle of preparing another article for FA submission. They did not respond. So, I don't find the statement "discussion with Cla68 is ongoing" to be very accurate. If someone is willing and able, perhaps they could post this paragraph to my user talk page and/or Timotheus Cannens' talk page?
-Cla68
Now just wait for all the Usual Suspects to grouse about how your posting the above is "proxying for a banned user" and/or "republishing things from an attack site" or some such thing. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this drama still ongoing?[edit]

The war is over. Unblock immediately. Move along. There are already regulations in place about so-called "outing"... The block subject needn't give formal assurances about such things, the rules are the rules and he is clearly aware of them, dubious merit of the current block notwithstanding... Carrite (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla is in conflict with ArbCom and ArbCom is in charge. As I've argued a zillion times before, it doesn't matter how good the Arbs we elect are, this is asking for problems. It's also not very relevant if the subject has flaws that need to be addressed, the way forward should be determined by someone who is independent of the parties in the conflict, someone who can rule against ArbCom, just like the SCOTUS can rule against the Obama Administration. Count Iblis (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Except that ArbCom is SCOTUS, in effect. There's no higher authority. Prioryman (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless Cla68 agrees to abide by our WP:OUTING policy, we have no choice but let the block stand. It's out of our hands. The ball's in Cla68's court. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but perhaps Cla is actually willing to do that. If I'm the boss and I want to deal with someone who has been making trouble, I can offer an olive branch in exchange for some consessions that would prevent future problems. But the moment I do that, there is no turning back, because my authority would be at stake. My authority can thus also become part of the problem. After some time, the conflict can have become much more about who is going to blink first instead of the underlying issues at hand. At this stage, if Cla were to be willing to agree to NYB's conditions, he may not be able to say that with a straight face, and ArbCom may not want to let Cla back in without Cla making such a statement. Count Iblis (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already got a cat[edit]

No need to watch kitty videos. What I do want to know is why this is still an issue? Why is Cla68's talk page still shut down to him? How does this possibly advance whatever dialog is necessary to end this pointless indef? Carrite (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Enough[edit]

The block is an arbitration block and so it can only be dealt with by the arbitration committee. Cla68 has contacted us by email and we are currently in discussions over the matter. He has no need for talk page access and given the circumstances, it is standard to keep the talk page closed to him.

That being said, there should be no need for anyone else to be posting here. If you want to discuss the matter with the committee, take it to the committee's noticeboard. If people cannot keep away from this page whilst Cla68 cannot edit it, I will fully protect it until there is a decision. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I had already been toying with the idea of protecting this page to stop the ever-present drama, so your note has spurred me to do so. I set the length to be indefinite, and will remove it (or any admin can) after the appeal process has concluded itself. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What if people want to leave routine messages about some of Cla68's content work (something many of the Arbitrators have lost touch with)? Closing this page means that Cla68's friends won't hear about articles going to WP:FAR or WP:GAR that might need help, for example. I think protecting this page is a stupid decision. "Drama" isn't a proper reason to protect a page. Attempts to stiffle "drama" generally create more drama, rather than avoiding drama. Please reconsider. Jehochman Talk 11:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's a better idea. Unprotect the page and add an editnotice saying something along the lines of "Cla68's talkpage is currently for content-related notices only. Any discussion of his block or talkpage access will be removed". Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    Rather than threatening to remove talk page access, just say: use of this page is restricted to content related matters. For discussion of the block, go to {appropriate link}. Misplaced comments may be removed. While not light handed, this solution would be preferable to completely cutting off content notices. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, that waas clumsily worded, I wasn't threatening to remove TP, I meant "Any discussion of either Cla68's block or the removal of his talkpage access". Your wording is probably better anyway. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have unprotected for now, with an edit notice WormTT(talk) 13:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really follow. What's wrong with discussing the block here? Cla68 has been indefinitely blocked and this is Cla68's user talk page. We've been using user talk pages in this way for... a very long time.

Regarding this being an "arbitration block," I don't really see what makes it so. What's the process for making it a regular admin block? The community has discussed, at length, the issue of Wikipediocracy and links to it. Surely there's little reason for this to remain an arbitration block. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This seems like a perfectly appropriate and logical place to discuss the situation. My impression is that the move to shut down discussion is simply an attempt to get people to forget about the situation, even though it remains unresolved. Everyking (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is ARBCOM ever going to get to this?[edit]

It's been a ling time since you guys were working feverishly on fixing this. When do you think you'll get around to deciding something? Everyone else who was even remotely associated with this is unblocked.

It smells more than a little like punishment at this point. Qwickwire (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is still discussing this matter, and I anticipate that a decision should be made soon. However, there will now be a short delay while I block you indefinitely for having an impermissibly confusing impersonator username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
One month later, I observe that this must be quite a discussion. Everyking (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Last I heard, arbcom are now waiting for Cla68, rather than the other way round. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Everyking, I'm guessing you missed the discussion last month on the ArbCom's noticeboard, which I don't think you participated in - see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. Cla68 himself doesn't seem to be in any hurry to be unblocked, so there doesn't seem to be much point in people repeatedly raising this issue. Prioryman (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


In most situations indefinite blocks are used to bully users into an admission of wrongdoing even if there's nothing to admit, and then, if a user agrees to undergo a public humiliation in order to be allowed back to the "paradise" he will remain banned anyway. Probably Cla68 refused to be intimidated. Good for him! Wikipedia is a sick place as one user says "Never to forgive, never to forget? From Hell's heart I stab at thee? For Hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee? Is that the kind of wiki we want to be???" I am afraid it is, Diannaa. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Jonny Z[edit]

Back in January 2010 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked by the Arbitration Committee[edit]

The committee has voted to conditionally allow your appeal. You are now subject to the following conditions while editing the English Wikipedia:

Cla68's block is lifted, effective at the passage of this motion, with the following restrictions:
  1. Cla68 may not post external links to any internet site, except
    • for the purpose of providing a reference to a reliable source when improving an article, or
    • to add an external link to an article to the official website/webpage of the article subject, or
    • for the purpose of discussing whether or not a reference to a reliable source would be a useful addition to an article
  2. Under no circumstances may Cla68 add an external link to any blog, mailing list or forum, regardless of its purported reliability or value as a reference for an article.
  3. Any violation of the sanctions governing the use of external links, or any further violation of the Harassment policy may result in an immediate indefinite block from editing. All appeals to blocks will be made directly to the Arbitration Committee, and any blocks referencing this motion will be considered arbitration enforcement blocks if applied by an administrator, or Arbitration Committee blocks if applied by an arbitrator.
Support: Risker (proposing), AGK, Newyorkbrad, Carcharoth, David Fuchs, WormThatTurned, and Timotheus Canens
Oppose: Courcelles, SilkTork, and Salvio giuliano
Not voting: Roger Davies
Recuse: NuclearWarfare, Kirill Lokshin

Please contact me or any non-recused arbitrator if anything is unclear or you have any other questions about these conditions.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 09:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


What about the other people who posted the same link as Cla68? Why has the Arbcom ignored them and targeted Cla68? What about Russivia's own posts on the mailing list where her outed himself. Does the Arbcom have any idea how petty and incompetent this makes them look?

If it were me, my first edit back would be to post a link to a [link removed], where everyone can speak their honest mind. VolframoKarbido (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back.[edit]

Scott talk 15:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Ched :  ?  15:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • So good to see you're back.(olive (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC))
  • Well, I guess you didn't see that one coming. Nice to see you back.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see you're unblocked and I hope to see you editing again. I must say, however, that the restrictions that have been imposed are completely unjustified, and the ArbCom's actions during this whole affair have been disgraceful. Everyking (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Andreas JN466 02:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is good. --regentspark (comment) 23:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm glad he's unblocked, though the restrictions are pretty stupid. But I suppose the ArbCom needs some face-saving. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit late to the party, but happy to see you back.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Intothatdarkness 17:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • John Vandenberg (chat) 00:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Welcome back mate! KeithbobTalk 15:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Welcome back, and please use this calming but slightly surprised kitten as an exemplar of how to stay back! (P.S. racing to your userpage to add banned templates? Hardly - I find excessive enthusiasm for such activities to be rather distasteful.)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge1000, I wonder what else you find distasteful? For example do you find distasteful a person who sees nothing wrong with reading private emails that were not addressed to him and that he got from a hacker, and then using those emails as an evidence? I personally find such person extremely distasteful and extremely dirty. Actually I find such person so dirty that I would not have used him as a brush to clean my toilet. I really like to learn your opinion on this matter. Thanks. 71.202.120.151 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I find liars distateful, too. Oh, I see you're on my Commons talkpage as well. Perhaps I'll reply over there. At the weekend. Be well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
IP, any editor who attempts to make peace or be friendly, as Demiurge has here, should be welcomed for it. If you have a problem with him/her, please take it up with them on their talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, Cla68. I should not have done this, but who knew that Demiurge1000 would take my comment so close to the heart that, he will go to his talk page on Commons, will start talking to himself and will call himself "a liar"?
Anyway, I also like to welcome you back to Wikipedia. Have fun. 71.202.120.151 (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Seems my meta talk page is what I was after. Apologies that this nonsense followed me to your talk page, Cla68. I suppose you've had to endure worse things :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you everyone for your support while I was blocked and for the warm welcome backs. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me add to the chorus saying that it's good to see you back; I was very happy to see your comment pop up in my GA review just now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For standing up for what you believed and refusing to take the easy road back by genuflecting or kow-towing. Shame on those members of ArbCom who did not make your return speedy and unanimous. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone for the kind words and warm welcome back. Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day![edit]

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

education in training
Thank you for your profound coverage of topics around Japanese military history and martial arts, and for your free advice how to write articles of a quality ready to be featured, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 October 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 143rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Blueduck.png

Move Like This
by 28bytes

I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Gordon McClymont GA review[edit]

Hi, I'm doing the GA review of Gordon McClymont. There are just a few easy things that need to be cleaned up or responded to. Something I noticed: you seem to have written this article with strong ties to Australian in American English (though it may be that I'm just not familiar enough with Australian English). Also, there are no images whatsoever. I'm not sure that they're absolutely necessary, but it is a bit surprising. Anyways, the article is pretty much good to go once a few things are fixed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this user blocked? Should I expect any response to this? That would be disappointing. The article only needs the slightest of tweaks. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Give the man some time to respond! Some people are busy in real life.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I only posted this after skimming the discussions above—not trying to rush anyone! Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response. I'm really busy today. I will try to respond within 24-hours. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey, it doesn't look like you've been very active in the last few days. I'm not sure if you doN't realize there are still reference issues with the article, if if you've just been busy. When you get the time, can you take a look? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response. I'm still working on the fixes you recommended, but I'm on a business trip for the net several days. Cla68 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I've answered all of your feedback points. Cla68 (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You have. I've passed it. Nice work! Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not Really Revert Warring[edit]

[8] Your edit and edit summary calls a simple revert "revert warring". That could be interpreted as a personal attack. Please attempt to be more thoughtful when characterizing other people's edits. Bill Huffman (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Telling lies" accusations[edit]

"As far as I know, calling someone a liar without evidence is a violation of WP:NPA. Cla68 (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)"

Well ok, but how far do you know? I was accused of telling lots of lies by an Admin recently, but clearly he had no intention of backing that up at all, and just wanted to insult. I really think to accuse someone of lying is a serious personal affront, and should be taken seriously at the WP, but I do not see that here at all, rather I see that, and demeaning false accusations, to be fundamentally accepted features of the cesspool culture here. The Admin who accused me of lying, no doubt thinks he is entirely free to do so without repercussion. (Because he is Admin!?) Admins get away with completely despicable behavior that any regular editor would be blocked for in one second. The "behavior at a higher standard" fiction must be the biggest joke on the WP. My conclusion was that the thoroughly hostile and abusive culture at WP is both infamous and somehow accepted as "norm" around here, along with the lack of controls on Admins who wish to abuse their mop and who brazenly show no regard for civility almost as if to make a point of it that they can and nothing happens, renders doing anything about it impossible and a joke. (Many times an Admin will snark back after a complaint: "So take me to ANI then!", perhaps because they know I have stated I will never open any thread there for any reason whatever due to the mob rule and irresponsibility famous at that board.) I don't believe there is any belief out there that any of these problems can or will see any improvement or change in forseeable future. (Why would it abate, what reason?) I'm glad to hear any your feedbacks. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

More IJN carrier articles[edit]

Just thought you might like to know that I've been revising the next three carrier articles Ryūjō, Sōryū, and Hiryū and intend to take at least two of the three to FAC in the next few months. If you've got more info or pictures to add, feel free to do so and we can co-nom as you like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I will check to see if I have any additional photos I haven't scanned and uploaded yet. I believe one of those carriers is famous for not having many surviving photos of it. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Madgwick[edit]

G'day, Cla68, I have started the GA review for Robert Madgwick. It can be found here: Talk:Robert Madgwick/GA1. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, sorry to hassle you. It has been a week since I posted this and I haven't seen a response. Based on your contributions, I see that you have only made a couple of edits over the past week, so I assume you are busy in real life, which is fine and I know what that's like. I'm happy to leave the review open longer, as I think it is very close to passing, but if possible can you please respond and let me know what your intentions are? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been on the road since 5 July and have only had time to look at WP for a few minutes here and there. I appreciate your review of the article and will respond as soon as I have sufficient time to give an adequate response. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for getting back to me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Battle of the Eastern Solomons[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of the Eastern Solomons know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 24, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 24, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

EasternSolomonsEnterpriseBurning.jpg

The naval Battle of the Eastern Solomons took place on 24–25 August 1942, and was the third carrier battle of the Pacific campaign of World War II and the second major engagement fought between the United States Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Guadalcanal Campaign. As at Coral Sea and Midway, the ships of the two adversaries were never within sight of each other. Instead, all attacks were carried out by carrier- or land-based aircraft. After several damaging air attacks, the naval surface combatants from both the United States of America (U.S.) and Japan withdrew from the battle area without either side securing a clear victory. However, the U.S. and its allies gained tactical and strategic advantage. Japan's losses were greater and included dozens of aircraft and their experienced aircrews. Also, Japanese reinforcements intended for Guadalcanal were delayed and eventually delivered by warships rather than transport ships, giving the Allies more time to prepare for the Japanese counteroffensive and preventing the Japanese from landing heavy artillery, ammunition, and other supplies. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

ID dispute resolution[edit]

As you know, we have frequent disputes on the Talk:Intelligent design page that focus on distinguishing Intelligent design from the teleological argument. I have started a new section on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this and listed you as a participant in these disputes. If you have some time, please stop over and explain what your proposed resolution is and why you believe this to be the case. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Race and intelligence[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion which involves you has been proposed at the above named request for clarification. The motion can be viewed here. Please feel free to register your comments at the clarification request. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 19:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your colour photo of Tadamichi Kuribayashi[edit]

Hello Cla, as can be seen in its history, you uploaded a colour version of a photo of Tadamichi Kuribayashi to Commons in 2008. (see here) I wanted to ask you if you still know the exact source because this version seems to be a hoax. In comparison to the former black and white version of the photo, there was added a third general star to Tadamichis uniform and as he was promoted to general in the late phase of the battle for iwo jima it is highly unlikely that the photo was made in March 1945. Regards --Bomzibar (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember where it came from. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification error?[edit]

Hello. This may be a mistake on the part of the notification system, but I received a ping from it saying that you have mentioned me in this edit. I can't find any mention of myself there, so I'm wondering: Did you mention me for some reason, and, if so, what was it about? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I had been pinged too, but it seems it was because he used these {} instead of these [], when linking to the R&I case.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. Thanks for the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Of possible interest[edit]

I looked at your Library list and in doing so I thought of this recent book: Escape from Davao. Might be up your alley to read. I haven't read the book, but I did enjoy editing the Wiki article on it, and your interests reminded me of it. Softlavender (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that book. Thank you for telling me about it. I've got a bunch of Pacific War books stacked up I haven't gotten to yet and it looks like this will be added to my reading list. Cla68 (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed[edit]

This is a message to inform you that a request for clarification has now been closed and following motion has been passed. The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion that

For posting inappropriate material relating to an editor with whom he is subject to an interaction restriction, Mathsci is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban not less than six months from the date this motion passes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 09:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Silgan Holdings[edit]

I've given it a go. Not for any particular reason other than that the entire "paid editing" discussion is quite interesting to me, so I thought I'd see what happens. I've attempted to keep the article as straightforward as possible. Thoughts? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you got it to start level to me! Please email me your payment info. Cla68 (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Comcast Business Services[edit]

Howdy- I wanted to let you know I've taken on the Comcast Business Services page. I added the "Services" to it because almost all of the sources I saw used that term. I am still expanding the article, but have met your "stub-class" thing so far. I plan on going all the way. In fact, I'm enjoying it a lot, and might take it a lot further than start class myself. Have a good one. PrairieKid (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Titan's Cross nomination[edit]

As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Comcast Business[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Cla68. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Westin Dodger 15:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I made a posting regarding this on the Reward Board. (I don't mean to single you out, and I appreciate that you are trying very hard to be transparent about the money.) DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 7, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 7, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

Akagi was the second aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) to enter service, and the first large or "fleet" carrier. She was converted to an aircraft carrier while still under construction to comply with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, and figured prominently in the development of the IJN's revolutionary doctrine that grouped carriers together, concentrating their air power. The ship and her aircraft first saw combat during the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s. During the Pacific War, she took part in the Attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942 as flagship of the First Air Fleet. Over the next several months her aircraft bombed Darwin, Australia, assisted in the conquest of the Dutch East Indies, and helped sink a British heavy cruiser and an Australian destroyer in the Indian Ocean Raid. After bombarding American forces on Midway Atoll during the Battle of Midway in June, Akagi and the other carriers were attacked by aircraft from Midway and three American carriers. Akagi was severely damaged, and she was scuttled by Japanese destroyers to prevent her from falling into enemy hands. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas ya' filthy animal . . .[edit]

. . . and a Happy New Year.--The Holiday Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cla68![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Cla68:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Peace sign.svg


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Port Chicago disaster may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[USS Kitty Hawk riot]-1972 riot between black and white sailors on the {{USS|Kitty Hawk|CV-63|2}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

How does it work? What are the market rates? When looking around Wikipedia it's very obvious to me which articles were paid for. There's a throw away account who has done a really good job, all in one string of edits, writing about a really boring (but possible notable organization) that no real editor would care to write about in their free time. Jehochman Talk 01:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cla68, no answer? Okay. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Cla68, you are well respected member, Probably impossible to understand by anyone, who lied to you so that you protect a misogynist RooshV who was named the most hated man in the world, part of extremist and hate group, who is on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s extremism report, a privilege usually reserved for neo-Nazis and terrorists

Maybe you should read more about him, before editing his page and removing important information about him.

Do you realize the effect that it has on your reputation, to support an extremist, mysoginist, have you even read his hateful works and the interviews for Washtington Times or Daily Dot magazines and what RooshV constantly promotes? Have you read his books and his articles and what Roosh constantly promotes? Do you realize the effect on your reputation to associate yourself with RooshV ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egirl90 (talkcontribs) 00:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.[edit]

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 2/10/2014. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John Jerry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jonathan Martin
Mike Pouncey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jonathan Martin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Like[edit]

Hahahahahahahahaha. Like it! darwinbish BITE 13:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Taylor (FFG-50) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • aground-1.269895 Navy relieves USS Taylor's commander after ship ran aground]", ''Stars & Stripes]], 25 February 2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 31, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 31, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi

Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi (1911–1943), was a surgeon in the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II. A devout Seventh-day Adventist, Tatsuguchi studied medicine and was licensed as a physician in the United States. He returned to Japan to practice medicine at the Tokyo Adventist Sanitarium. In 1941, he was conscripted as an acting medical officer, and was later sent to Attu Island, Alaska, which had been occupied by Japanese forces in October 1942. The U.S. Army landed on the island in May 1943, and throughout the resulting battle, Tatsuguchi kept a diary recording the events of the battle and his struggle to care for the wounded in his field hospital. He was killed on the battle's final day. His diary was recovered and translated, and copies were widely disseminated in the US after the battle. The American public was intrigued by a Christian, American-trained doctor serving with Japanese forces and by his apparent participation in assisting with the deaths of wounded Japanese soldiers. Excerpts from the diary have been widely quoted in Western historical accounts of the battle, especially his final entry in which he recorded a farewell message to his family. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Precious again, excellent moving topic, with a lovely happy FAC discussion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Miami (SSN-755), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Day (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks[edit]

Hands4 Overlaying.jpg

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- KeithbobTalk 19:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request(Fae)[edit]

An arbitration amendment request(Fae), to which you contributed, resulted in a motion.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Roosh V[edit]

I'm not going to template a regular, but please stop edit warring on Roosh V. Multiple editors don't see a problem with the wording. Please take the discussion to the talk page or start a DRN. If you revert again, I will open a AN3. The term itself isn't overly pejorative to override 3RR. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cla68 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ). Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Just noting that I'm explicitly stating that discretionary sanction apply to Roosh V, making no comment on your edits to the page so far. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Where were you when a couple of editors were edit warring to place a pejorative label in the intro for that article? Cla68 (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not alerted to the fact that there was a problem on the article...? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Please note that Rupert Sheldrake is currently subject to 1RR as shown in the editnotice. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Recusals Based on COI Request[edit]

While I appreciate how you feel about the predilection toward negative or pejorative coverage on the Deepak Chopra page, your request for recusals based on COI's stemming from the article in question is probably not the wisest approach. I've dealt with this kind of thing before, and I'd hate to see you give anyone the means to silence one of the few voices speaking out against the negativity. I respectfully recommend withdrawing the COI Recusal section and working with myself and the other editors there to put together a good, neutral article. Just my two cents. The Cap'n (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Montpelier (SSN-765) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 'Sub, dead ahead!' New Navy report dissects collision at sea]", ''[[The Virginian-Pilot]]'', (reprinted in ''[[Stars and Stripes (newspaper)|Stars and Stripes]]'', 17 June 2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS San Jacinto (CG-56) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 'Sub, dead ahead!' New Navy report dissects collision at sea]", ''[[The Virginian-Pilot]]'', (reprinted in ''[[Stars and Stripes (newspaper)|Stars and Stripes]]'', 17 June 2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why I reverted your edit[edit]

Hi. I reverted your edit at Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies because it was reposting material from a banned editor (at least I'm given to understand, and by your comments I gather that you accept that the material was indeed from a banned editor).

We have a pretty loose governance structure here as it is, and banning is one of our few methods of enforcing our rules, so we need to try to keep that as effective as we can. It's not very effective as it is, and disregarding the prescription against re-posting material deleted because it was from a banned editor doesn't help.

I pretty much gather that you think that's all nonsense, but that's beside the point, in the same way you can think that speed limits are nonsense but shouldn't be actually surprised to be pulled over for going 100 MPH and so on. And there are certainly editors who are banned wrongly, but that's also beside the point; most banned editors can probably find someone who thinks they were banned wrongly, and if editors were allowed to post material from editors who they think they were banned wrongly, banning would have little practical effect.

I'm not watching this page so I won't be engaging further on the matter here; I'm just explaining my action. If for some reason (I can't image what it would be, but you never know) you wish to further engage on the matter (hope not, but your call) you'll have to hail me on my own talk page. Herostratus (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Energy in Japan[edit]

I am reviewing the Hu version of this article, where the original editor freely cited the English references. On checking this latter I found that Ref37. and Ref38. did not lead to the pages cited. Could you please see how this could be improved upon. See my comments there. Thanks in anticipation. Regards LouisBB (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Viz: 25/09/2011 LouisBB (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Antifeminism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Feminism’ Gets Right]", ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'', 24 July 2014</ref><ref>Knisley, Lisa, "[http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/what-we-can-learn-women-against-feminism/ What we can learn from

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jet Airways may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • as-94727695842.html Asleep in the Cockpit? Flight Takes Scary Plunge as Pilot Dozes Off]", ''[[Yahoo! Travel]'', 15 August 2014</ref>
  • decreed that foreign airlines would not be allowed to own any shares in any Indian airline (though other foreign entities and individuals could still acquire or own minority stakes in Indian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, about a piece of info erased[edit]

Hi Cla, I had added a link to Eliot Higgins/Moses Brown's analysis about the Buk in WO, but it was erased along with the comments deemed political, I thought it could be of some interest: [9] Take care, have a great and pleasant weekend! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

Every great once in a while you make a post to my talk page. I have found these post uniformly unhelpful and I have no desire to reply to them. I would therefore ask that you please stop making any posts to my talk page. There's no need to reply as I will also not be watching your talk page.

Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Unlike you Beeblebrox, I used to actually write Featured Articles, so when I say WP is a sham I may know what I'm talking about. Instead of trying to refute my accusation, you get defensive, revert my post to your talk page, and ask me to leave you alone. That tells me that I'm hitting close to the mark. Even if you aren't watching my talk page, which I doubt (because like most Wikipedians, you are undoubtedly drawn to drama), my talk page has a lot of watchers, so this conversation may be having an effect on other established editors. So, by responding the way you do, you are helping further WP's eventual demise. Cla68 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sept 11 Attacks Talk page[edit]

Hey there, so I wrote a short blurb to potentially be included in the main article like you suggested I do, and I posted it on the talk page... if you have a chance, could you check it out and let me know what you think? Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Surely you jest[edit]

Thanks for the most hilarious edit summary I've ever seen.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of 9/11 discretionary sanctions[edit]

Cla68...I have stated many times your only contributions to 9/11 related articles is to promote the expansion of conspiracy theories. I consider your efforts to be disruptive and I am not alone in that assessment. I can provide a plethora of diffs not only about your shenanigans on 9/11 pages but the usual stuff we already know about.--MONGO 23:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Again with the threats. Don't you think it would be easier if you just complied with WP's policies and engaged in civil, mannered discussions on an article talk page instead of resorting to threats with any editor who proposes something you don't agree with? The attitude that you are using with me and other editors, IMO, is one of the biggest reasons as to why WP is currently fading away into irrelevancy. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't make threats...this is just a formality.--MONGO 11:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Thanks so much for the friendly support! I created an RfC on the Setpember 11 Attack talk page as you suggested, could you take a minute to look it over and make sure everything looks cool? It's my first one and all. Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I have made the decision to have the RfC closed by posting a request here. I was wondering if you had any advice for this? Discussion is still lively so I'd like the RfC to run a full 30 days, which would end on Sept 18. Should I wait to list it for closing until then? Or is it worthwhile to go ahead and list it there now so someone can begin going over it? (it's obviously a lot to review). Also, I notice some people request editors, while others request admins. Would it be advisable to request an admin, given the volatile nature of the page? Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest letting it run until 18 Sep, then ask someone to close it. I don't think it mattes if it's an admin or an editor who closes it, as long as it's someone who isn't involved with the article previously. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the advice! Smitty121981 (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Peer review on Death of Osama bin Laden[edit]

A peer review is being held at WP:Peer review/Death of Osama bin Laden/archive1 to enhance this article to FA status.Forbidden User (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Why[edit]

Why are you pursuing the RfA proposal? It was insulting enough when you first proposed it, but you are continuing to push it as it you actually mean it. Frankly, it is taking a huge does of AGF to keep my finger off the block button. You are disrupting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article 11 October[edit]

This is to inform you that Battle of Cape Esperance , which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 11 October 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. – Tim riley talk 09:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)