User talk:Cla68

RfC

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

Harassment

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

Asking an admin to explain why they made a personal attack against you is considered "harassment"? What a strange Wiki world we live in! But be sure you're not the only one to have been called a "conspiracy theorist" by Slim. See [1] for example. The diff I posted to her talk page, asking for an apology for that and another edit she made implying that I was liar has since been deleted [2] in the "cleaning up" of her talk page. There was no response, or apology either. One can only conclude that here at Wikipedia "some pigs are more equal than others". Unfortunately, I have no advice for you. Only the deepest of sympathies, which I thought I would share. Tiamut^talk 13:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

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

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

Your call for me to recuse ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am eagerly anticipating your evidence

Mantanmoreland's troubling treatment.

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

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

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

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

I hope you don't mind that I've corrected the points to bring them in line with the facts I'm aware of. I think I wasn't clear enough to begin with.[3] Cool Hand Luke 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Post to SlimVirgin's talk page

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

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

This is what you wrote:

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

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

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

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

Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status

Hello, Cla68. I was asked to write a signpost tutorial about how to get an article to featured article. This is my first draft. It is based on my own page: User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA, which was inspired by your advice as well. If you have time, check the draft, offer any comments you would like, check the prose, and propose me any improvements you regard as useful. Thank you in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way what happened to the MILHIST's advice on writing a FA. I click on the link, but I cannot find it. Did they remove it or am I just fool?!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment on the page's talk page. Great work. I'm not sure what happened to the MILHIST FA advice. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

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

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

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

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

If you look at the evidence I'm presenting in the related ArbCom case [4], you can see that I am still bothered by what occurred in my RfA. One of the purposes of the RfC was to document what happened as a future reference as well as so that I could learn from the experience and from analysis and comments provided by others. One of things that bothers me the most about the RfA was that an active participant there and in the RfC, an admin, knowingly and mendaciously lied, and has never been held adequately accountable for doing so. Cla68 (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Your comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jayjg, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia? User:Dorftroffel 08:52, February 20, 2008

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

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

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

curious sockpuppet

While looking over your evidence, I visited the page of your RfA where I stumbled upon User:Blutacker. I had "flagged" the account, saying "This is the user's sixth edit, and his second outside Daniel Brandt" Since the Brandt article is deleted, only an admin could evaluate those 4 edits. At any rate, it's very clear that the account is a sockpuppet and I tagged the user page with {{Sockunknown}}. I'm not sure if this means anything at all (probably not), but I thought I'd notify you of this find. Blutacker btw is the German name for Akeldama. User:Dorftrottel 06:01, February 18, 2008

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

Same here, just thought it curious enough to drop you a line. User:Dorftrottel 13:42, February 19, 2008

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

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

Arbcom case case

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

Sockpuppeting

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

(DIFF?)

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

(further down) Look at

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

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

Further:

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

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

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

How does Cla68 respond to this by Mantan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you sure?

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

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

Mild objection

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

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

Thatcher removal

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

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

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

Tried to get the AfD undeleted

I wish this was undeleted because it has one of Mantanmoreland's most duplicitous statements. Anyhow, here's a deleted diff where he expands his initial comment: [5]. Admins would be able to see this:

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

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

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

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

If you could

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

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

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

Congrats

Congrats on the USAF incident FAC passing. For future reference, you can use the |accessdate= and |accessyear= parameters so as to have a consistent date. Woody (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip and for the helpful comments. Cla68 (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

More congrats if you want it

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

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

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

Admin?

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

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

RfC

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

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

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

Re: RfC

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

Notifications

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

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

asking for your support

Good day, I am soliciting your input and support for reinstating an article that I wrote called Leo J Meyer. Col Meyer was a soldier who started out in pre WWII National Guard ranks. After being called to Federal service and serving in the Pacific for most of 1942 he attended USAAF OCS in Miami Beach Fl along with several Hollywood personalities. His squad Sergeant was William Holden. He continued thru the war to Japan and returned after it to NYNY. He reenlisted in the National Guard and then transferred back onto active duty. He managed to get his commission reinstated and spent the rest of his time on active Army until retiring as a Colonel in 1971. He actually participated in combat in three wars and was awarded three Combat Infantryman Badges (read the article and the article on the CIB to learn the significance).

Besides telling a story of a man who “just wanted to be a soldier” I intended to wet the whistle of readers with a glimpse of US Army history (federalization of NG, WWII enlisted rank system, etc) hoping to encourage further investigation and learning of that history via Wikipedia.

I began posting the article to Wikipedia in late November 2007. By late January 2008 I felt the military biography was essentially complete without telling anecdotal stories about him and his friends like Hugh Casey for whom Camp Casey, Korea was named. That would only point out his personality and not necessarily be encyclopedic. At the end of January 08 a Wikipedia Administrator nominated the article for deletion. Although there were a couple of administrators who participated in the discussions who supported leaving the article, the decision was made to delete.

Obviously I feel that the Military Biographical Article falls in line with other articles of soldiers like Meyer’s friend Frederick Weyand whose article was the example I followed.

I found that those people who participated in the AfD did not read everything published or what was there very clearly, i.e. I hade posted an image of an article from an Army publication which addressed Meyer’s earning his parachute wings at age 51 and I had included from the get go the title of a book about Scrimshaw in which some of his art work was published by the books author. One complaint about this later was that there was no ISBN. I could not find one but I have found the Library of Congress Catalog numbers for the two books referenced.

I have modified the article and it is currently at User:Meyerj user page. I am inviting you to read it and if you support reinstating it, helping me to do so.

Thank you for your time. Meyerj (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

==Leo J. Meyer==

Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. MrPrada (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Source

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

Reply

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

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

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

Prem Rawat

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

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

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

Arbitration

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

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

RfC sandbox(es)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

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

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

RfC draft

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

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

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

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

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

RfC

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have any problem at all taking your name off of it [6]. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Cla68 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

New antisemitism

The edits seem to be there.[7] Sometimes edit histories are misplaced when a page is cut-and-paste moved. Most of the admin work I do is fixing those. In this case it all looks right to me. Cool Hand Luke 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. It's only been recently that protections make an edit summary. They used to be silent. But you can see them on the logs. Crum did protect it.[8] Cool Hand Luke 04:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that recently though. This is also in the history.[9] Cool Hand Luke 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Change to WP:Harassment

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a couple [10] [11]. Cla68 (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

COI precedent

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Missing article

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

Expert help needed

Hi, apologies for taking some of your time. User:Nick Dowling recommended you (see here) as someone who maybe able to help me in a referencing problem for 3 Japan military related articles on subjects from the WWII period. I have already asked this question on the Japanese military history task force talk page but have had no response. Sorry if you have already seen this query there, but I am no expert in Japan or its military history so would appreciate some expert guidance. Any help would be much appreciated, even if it is to advise where/who else to ask. regards ascidian | talk-to-me 12:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but it looks like you identified correct sources. I also responded at the Japan MilHist page. Cla68 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at them, its a great help to know I'm on the right track. I'll also try and look at those other two sources you mentioned. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cla... if you get a chance, mind taking a gander at Bezhin Meadow? It's the one I'm working on now--I've got a ton of sources at User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Bezhin Meadow that I still need to go through. Any early feedback would be appreciated, as in the past. I've got it in for a GA nom, I think it's probably 6-8 weeks from an FA nom, if I can keep up the pace from the past few days and not get sidetracked. Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I don't work much on film articles, but doesn't the film plot section come before the production section? If not, no big deal. Also, you might try to explain in greater detail why the Soviet authorities didn't like the film. After reading their rationale, I still don't understand why they didn't like it. But, perhaps that's the point. Maybe their reasoning was contradictory and didn't make much sense. Also, what was the critical reaction to the film after it was finally released? And, what type of cinematographic style did it use, surrealism, noir, hyper-realism, etc.? And whatever style it used, was it the same kind of style used by most Russian film makers of that time? Anyway, looks like a good start. Cla68 (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The reason the Soviet authorities sank it is absurdly contradictory, added in by the fact the man mainly responsible may or may not have been an English spy--as far as I can tell, about 1/4 through the sources, a mystery. I put the production before the summary, since it seems like the production itself is more notable than the film. It seems odd to me, as well--the story being the filming of the film, rather than the film itself. I'll look into expanding the other bits based on your suggestions. The sources are rich, but a bear to get through. The reaction/legacy section I think will end up the largest in the end... Lawrence § t/e 03:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A-class review of Armia Krajowa

In March you've commented on the Armia Krajowa article, which have eventually passed the A-class review. Since then I have been steadily expanding the article (my goal is to FA it one day), but in recent days a content dispute is threatening to destabilize this article; your comments would be much appreciated here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! I don't understand the dispute and talk page is difficult to parse because the participants there seem to be already very knowledgeable in what the dispute is. Please explain to me what the dispute is about assume (correctly) that I have no background at all in what it involves. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue involves the lead. Some users want to add this information to the lead. As I explained in my large post at the bottom of this thread, such claims seem undue and fringe. For example, a similar argument would be to add claims about Free French committing war crimes (per this) to the lead of Free French article (which I'd oppose, of course), or claim about US Army committing atrocities to the lead of US Army (per Canicattì massacre, for example) and so on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd take it to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and post a link and notification about the thread there on the talk page of the article, and perhaps on the talk pages of the editors involved. The editors at that noticeboard could provide some good advice on how to approach the dispute. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the noticeboard, I haven't thought of that. What to you yourself think about the fringiness (or lack of it) of the information discussed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

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

Hello

Hi Cla68.

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

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

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

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

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

I need to talk to you

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

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

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

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

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

Why I don't answer the question

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

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

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles) Chevrons (2000 articles) Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles) Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles) Third place overall Second place overall First place overall

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [15] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Stay away

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK

On 8 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tadayoshi Sano, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this really appropriate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I clarified my remarks here [16]. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allow me to clarify some mischaracterizations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coercion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I explained it already, but in case anyone reads this thread and can't find my explanation, my remarks on Wikipedia Review were in reference to this post [17], not a threat to out anyone. I apologize for not choosing my words more carefully. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

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

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

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

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

Spain? No, Utah!

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

He has consistently slagged the global warming "cabal,"[18] accusing us of running a "walled garden."[19] And it's fairly obvious that once you get on his bad side, you can expect an onslaught of RfCs, arbcom filings, and the like. So I hope you can understand my concern. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

On April 16 Cla68 showed up on my talk page to compliment me on my activity in the global warming articles, stating "I've seen some complaints both on and off-wiki that those articles are supposedly a walled garden protected by a group of POV pushers. But seeing as how you're actively involved with them, I know that can't be the case."[20] It seemed a bit out of the blue given that I'd never had substantial dealings with him and he wasn't an active editor in the climate topics, but I thought well, that's a nice pat on the back.

Then on April 24 he says "There's evidence of cabalism in all of these examples- global warming, Gary Weiss, Israel history"[21] (notice this one especially) and on April 26 he criticizes "people in the global warming walled garden." [22] That's a complete turnaround in just a week! First he tells me that he's confident there's no global warming walled garden, and only a few days later there are two criticisms of the purportedly nonexistent walled garden and the "cabalism" that surrounds it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's in my top 25.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Did you know you were being monitored?

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

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

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

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

regarding evidence of sv disruptive editing

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

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

Advice regarding evidence

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

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

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

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

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

Congratulations

You win. 74.9.242.66 (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)