User talk:Kletetschka

I am personally acquainted with both Gunther Kletetschka and Robert Young. I know for a fact that Gunther is not Robert. Gunther is an accomplished scientist who works for NASA at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. He is the author or co-author of about 20 scientific articles, at least two of which are on aging. If you compare pictures of Gunther with those of Robert, it is obvious that they are not the same person. Pictures of Gunther can be seen at http://lep694.gsfc.nasa.gov/gunther/gunther/education.html, http://lep694.gsfc.nasa.gov/gunther/gunther/positions.html, and http://www-691.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitae/gkletetschka.html. A picture of Robert Young can be found at http://www.grg.org/Calment4A.html and search for gibson.

Because of the intense dislike that some administrators have of Robert Young, they immediately jump to the conclusion that anyone who supports him must be his sockpuppet. Certainly any genuine sockpuppet should be banned from Wikipedia, but administrators should exercise considerably more restraint than they have in making unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry. I, too, was a victim of a similar rush to judgment and had to prove my innocence to get unblocked. To her credit BrownHairedGirl then apologized for her mistake. More judicious exercise of administrative power would make apologies unnecessary.

Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet with no more evidence than their support of someone opposed by an administrator is contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia policy of "No Personal Attacks." This policy states, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse." The policy on Civility states that, "Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia from working well." Under the admonition to "Assume good faith" the Guidelines state, "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Finally, "Please do not bite the newcomers." "Many new contributors lack knowledge about Wikipedia policies. But always understand that new contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource." Administrators should adhere to these policies more rigorously.

There is nothing improper or unethical about a person joining Wikipedia to support someone who they feel has been attacked or maligned. Frequently these individuals have better first-hand knowledge about the person under attack than those who are conducting the attack.

I hope that a better spirit of moderation and mutual respect will prevail in this forum. StanPrimmer 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JJB 02:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I have been blocked from contributing to WIKI edits. I want to ask what do I need to do to become unblocked. Kletetschka (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom

Your name has been mentioned in recent evidence for an arbitration case filed on 2010-11-18. You were not originally named as a party, but I am sending this notice proforma to editors named in evidence, before the workshop period closes. If you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop#General discussion, or elsewhere on that page or the case's four talk pages. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JJB 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)