User talk:Cla68

“ Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality. -Theodor Adorno ”

“ If you must play, decide on three things at the start: the rules of the game, the stakes, and the quitting time. - Anon ”

Question at Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship

Hi Cla68, I just left a question for you at Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship#Arbitrary_break_for_convenience_of_editing, could you take a look? Thanks! Dcoetzee 03:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I answered. The fact that you asked me a follow up question is a good sign that you all are trying to do this right. Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy ban appeal arbitration case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 6, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on

Note to self to keep an eye on this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

COI allegations

I believe that the topic has a serious problem with WP:ACTIVISTs. Perhaps you don't think that's a problem on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

All of my edits are visible in my contribution list.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Akagi FAC

I'm pretty well finished tweaking Akagi myself, at least until I get the new edition of Hata in a couple of weeks, but I'm wondering if you want to keep on polishing it. You've added some new info, but also a lot of second, third and fourth cites to info that was already cited. I don't see a whole lot of value of doing this as it seems redundant to me, but you probably feel differently. Anyways, let me know if you'd prefer some more time to work on the article before we initiate the FAC. I'd really like to get confirmation of Hoyt's bit about the lost aircraft from Japanese sources as I'm not impressed with his work as a historian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I may be able to finish up tonight or tomorrow reviewing other sources. Hoyt, I believe, does cite his source for the information on the loss of the carrier's airgroup in the Sea of Japan, but I will check it again tonight. If you want to remove it, I'm fine with that. Cla68 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I will check Agawa's bio of Yamamoto also to see if he confirms the story and/or has any additional details. Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm done. Cla68 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually use anything from the new edition of Hata? If so then please specify which ones, using all three authors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to answer Nikkimaria's question about footnote 37.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I'll try to answer today. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC delegate resignation

FYI. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Arawe ACR

Hi, have you finished commenting in the Battle of Arawe A class review? The review has been listed for closure, and I've suggested keeping it open until you're done. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Great job. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks a lot for your excellent comments on the article and contributions to it. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Berg

Chuck, any attempt at sending cards to the foundation will be useless. You know that Kylu, supposedly a female, was confirmed to be a genuine person by Bastique, but then it turned out it was a dude? What kind of credentials do they accept if they can be fooled like that (or likely, they just accept selected individuals, honest or dishonest that they are, as long as they fit their goals)? Tempaccount6 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The real point of my question is that Scotty's remonstrations appear to be disingenuous. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least give Berg recognition for losing 120 pounds, even if it was with surgical procedures and not good natural methods (such as detaching his butt from the chair and walking)! Tempaccount6 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The person in question has some sympathy from me on that point. Two years ago I actually gained weight while training for a marathon! I wish weight was easier to lose, but so far I haven't, knock on wood, had to resort to surgery. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is ScottyBerg's editing akin to what Mantanmoreland would add/subtract to the Gary Weiss article? I haven't investigated whether they are or aren't.--MONGO 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, his edits to the article since 4 January are similar to the kind of edits that Mantanmoreland used to make. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you find them to be generally protective and possibly promotional?--MONGO 01:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember how the last Mantanmoreland sock farm was exposed? Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't recollect exactly...but I do know that WordBomb's "farm" was full of hogs...and it appears he or at least his surrogates are still active on this matter...on and off wiki.MONGO 12:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP's administration still owes him an apology for how he was treated when he first tried to alert them to Mantanmoreland's dishonesty. It's still not too late. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

South American dreadnought race

Hey Cla. A lot of newspapers accused the Japanese of plotting to buy the Minas Geraes class, so I was wondering what the Japanese media had to say about it all... but obviously I can't read Japanese, so I decided to contact you. Would you be able to look at some online archives (if there are any) and let me know if there is anything? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese very well either, but I will see what I can find. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously late follow-up, but did you ever find anything? Many thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries! Yeah, that wouldn't help much... I can make do with Google Translate for Romance languages because I can tell what links are close to what I want, but Japanese characters are far and beyond me. Thanks anyway! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Battle of Rennell Island

This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Rennell Island know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 29, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 29, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Battle of Rennell Island took place on 29–30 January 1943, and was the last major naval engagement between the United States Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Guadalcanal campaign of World War II. The battle took place in the South Pacific between Rennell Island and Guadalcanal in the southern Solomon Islands. In the battle, Japanese naval land-based torpedo bombers, seeking to provide protection for the impending evacuation of Japanese forces from Guadalcanal, made several attacks over two days on United States' warships operating as a task force south of Guadalcanal. In addition to approaching Guadalcanal with the objective of engaging any Japanese ships that might come into range, the U.S. task force was protecting an Allied transport ship convoy that was carrying replacement troops to Guadalcanal. As a result of the Japanese air attacks on the task force, one U.S. heavy cruiser was sunk, a destroyer was heavily damaged, and the rest of the U.S. task force was forced to retreat from the southern Solomons area. Partly because of their success in turning back the U.S. task force in this battle, the Japanese were successful in evacuating their remaining troops from Guadalcanal by 7 February 1943, leaving Guadalcanal in the hands of the Allies and ending the battle for the island. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fortifications

Hi. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. I'm trying to flesh out the Lahaina Fort section on Lahaina Banyan Court Park. Based on your informed opinion about fortifications, what information should be covered by this section? I ask because I have a lot of it, but I don't know what is important to add and what is unimportant enough to leave out. As someone interested in military history, exactly what data points should it contain as a general overview? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. There is a group of editors in WP:MIL who specialize in articles on fortifications and castles, so I'll ask them to help you out. I don't have any experience in that topic. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much! I can use all the help I can get. Like I said, I have the data, I just don't know what's important to include. :) Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late action on this, I just asked for assistance at MILHIST. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ScottyBerg RfC

You have been mentioned on this RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy's response

Has the co-founder answered the questions regarding copyrights we posed some days ago? I can't find anything right now. Gravitoweak (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, he didn't answer. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, i re-posted what you and Youreallycan wanted to ask, which is: Jimmy, your comment to CNN about the the wikipedia community being the voters seems at odds with that declared by the foundation (and followed) - did you know the foundation's position as to who was allowed to , encouraged to join in the vote? : Is that correct? Gravitoweak (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Three questions for Will Beback

Will Beback has so far failed to answer these three questions over at AN:

• Are you an administrator?
• Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife?
• Did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		offered with admiration. — Ched :  ?  11:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ

I'm not going to come here throwing block threats around, but if you feel that the hat was wrong, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it with me on my talk page or seek a consensus at ANI to reverse my decision. Please do not "summarize" that section again.--v/r - TP 23:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I told you to stay off my talk page before and I mean it. Now kindly bugger off and stop being a pain in the posterior. Prioryman (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Prioryman, but dispute resolution procedures required it. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right - pull the other one, it's got bells on it. Prioryman (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Final warning Do not continue to post personal attacks in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ, or you may be blocked from editing. I had hoped it wouldn't have to come to this, but if you can't see how your edits are inappropriate, then a block may be neccessary to prevent you from disrupting that RFC.--v/r - TP 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cla, I'm going to say this as someone who knows that you've said some nice things about me on WR, which I appreciate. My advice, that of course you didn't ask for, is to drop this. It's only going to blow up, and do no good. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a method to my madness, which I will put on TParis' talk page. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've mentioned your re-insertion at ani. Sorry your alleged attacks are NOT NPA/CIVIL violations, but your allegations are.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Several editors claimed, or implied, that Delicious Carbuncle, is a homophobe. In other words, they commented on the editor (the individual), not the edits (the individual's behavior). I alleged that this violated NPA, because it does. I commented on those editors' behavior, not them as people, and I supported my assertion with diffs. Therefore, I did not violate NPA. Cla68 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you had kept your focus to one or two editors, you might have had a case. Unfortunately, most of the edits for most of the users you cited are in no way shape or form personal attacks. Hell, one person you cited discounted the notion of it being gay related, but stil considers it to be harrassment. So since htat person deems it harrassment, they are listed as making an attack? Or cyber pooftery? You've lowered the bar for what is considered to be Civil/NPA violaitons to such a low level that it becomes an impediment to discussion. By including those you loose credibility in this claim.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We disagree that ad hominem arguments are personal attacks. That is fine. You can disagree with me, but don't edit war to prevent me from stating my opinion where everyone can see it. I addressed the behavior, not the person, as the NPA policy dictates, and I backed-up my opinion with diffs. So, I violated no policy. You can post your own, dissenting response if you want to, but you, or TParis, have no policy-backed rationale for deleting my comments or blocking me. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked; February 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 14:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also writing a block review on WP:AN that will address this issue as I asked you to do several times. I will give you the link here and copy over any of your comments if you have any.--v/r - TP 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey what happened? Gravitoweak (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cla68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I violated no WP policies: # The section in question I added to the talk page of the RfC was not a personal attack. I addressed the behavior of the accounts, not the people (address the edits, not the person) and supported with diffs, exactly as you are supposed to do. I was in the process of notifying the editors in question (I had notified Russavia and Prioryman) when the block occurred. # Using the talk page of an RfC for dispute resolution is fine, in fact, encouraged as part of the dispute resolution process. # There is no policy against adding a summary above or below a "hatted" discussion. Especially, since the hatted discussion itself violated no policies. # I did not violate WP:POINT because I disrupted no editing process within Wikipedia. I simply gave my opinion, with supporting diffs, on an RfC talk page. # I did not edit war over the "hatting", even though TParis had no policy-based justification for hatting that discussion. I did not edit war over my summary of the discussion, because I was restoring my own edits to the talk page, which had been illegally removed since they were not in violation of any policy. TParis, however, did edit war. # My summary of what the hatted section contained was more neutral than TParis' pejorative summary. So, what actually took place was that TParis edit-warred with me over talk page content, then used his admin privileges to win the argument. Cla68 (talk) 5:36 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Your block appears to have expired. If you have problems editing, please feel free to repost (please include the message you see when you try to edit). TNXMan 14:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd be happy to copy the comments over, I didn't realize the unblock request was one of the comments you wanted copied. I sort of expected a "Hey, copy this to AN:". I'll copy it now although I think the block is going to expire in a minute or two anyway.--v/r - TP 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it just expired so I guess I'll just wait for you to respond to the AN thread.--v/r - TP 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review. Thank you. v/r - TP 14:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Feb 2012

Cla, the witchhunt you're participating in seems to be causing severe and possibly long term damage to the real life career prospects of one of most productive volunteers. As you seem to lack the ability to reliably use the correct gender when referring to others or even to write a coherent sentence, maybe you could step away from the RfC and restrict yourself to activities more in line with your competence? I have a similar view about the other WR accounts. At any rate, please don't post about this matter on my talk again. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, please refrain from resorting to ad hominem arguments if you disagree with something that someone says in Wikipedia. Agreed? Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I request a hold?

Hello. Can I ask that you (just for a little while) put a hold on the whole "Fae/personal attack" series of edits? If for no other reason than that it does not appear to be an effective way of getting the message through? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm finished with that part of it for now. It is part of a larger effort I've started to try to tamp down on the use of ad hominem attacks by Wikipedians on each other, along with other logical fallacies. If you have this page on your watchlist, you will see what takes place as it progresses and I welcome your participation. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedantic logical point

Note that ad hominem and personal attack are logically distinct, because you can have a personal attack which is not an ad hominem, and you can have an ad hominem which is not a personal attack.

For an example of the first, suppose you say that your argument is not feeble, therefore you are not an idiot. I reply that you are an idiot, therefore your argument is feeble. This is not an ad hominem, because I have addressed your argument, by modus tollens. But it is clearly a personal attack on you. Conversely, if I reply 'you are a great guy, therefore what you say is correct', that is an ad hominem because it addresses your personal qualities rather than your argument itself. But it is a compliment, not an attack.

Arguments that someone is from Wikipedia Review therefore their arguments are unsound or invalid are clearly ad hominem. Even to say an argument is biased is ad hominem. Ad hominem is any form of words that fails to engage with the content of what the speaker is saying, and engages with personal qualities or motives or reasons or whatever. Hope that helps. 86.183.162.176 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. An ad hominem argument is not always a personal attack. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd go even further and say that the permissibility of an ad hominem should be determined by the contribution to the discourse, by whether it raises or lowers the level of intellectual honesty. Pointing out e.g. a clearcut conflict of interest which the editor in question decided to keep out of the debate and which cannot reasonably be assumed to be common knowledge does technically constitute an ad hominem. But imho it is not only permissible, but mandatory for anyone to try and give everyone involved and particularly less-intimately-knowledgeable onlookers a chance to gauge the arguments by their actual merits. Which brings me to my current major pet peeve in WP policy: There's a widely-quoted policy called "Assume good faith", but there is no policy "Act in good faith". And the meaning of this status quo is that some of our policies are geared towards protecting some of the worst, longest-term and most well-established miscreants among WP editors. Cla, I admire your attempts at improving Wikipedia, but this crowd does not want change. They love their fallacies, they love this dysfunction, and that's why any intelligent person should give up on Wikipedia sooner rather than later. --87.79.225.165 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the IP; ad hominem comments are not always illogical or a fallacy. The most obvious example is pointing out a conflict of interest, which the IP editor already outlined. If someone publishes an article claiming that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer, then it is entirely reasonable to point out that person's employment by a tobacco company. Far from being a logical fallacy, providing such information is considered essential in any ethical scholarly enterprise, even though it could be considered a form of ad hominem.

  A second situation in which ad hominem arguments are reasonable is in pointing out apparent hypocrisy. If you make a vigorous moral argument against behavior X, but in fact you routinely engage in behavior X, then it is reasonable to point out that your personal behavior calls into question the sincerity of your moral argument. Technically, that's an ad hominem approach, but it's neither illogical nor a fallacy. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Pointing out COI or hypocrisy aren't personal attacks if supported by evidence, but they are still usually ad hominem logical fallacies, because they don't directly address the content of the issue at hand. They address the credibility of the speaker, but not the veracity of the speaker's argument, because only an analysis of the actual content of the speaker's message can identify it's truthfulness. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The point is that an awareness of conflicts of interest, and of potential hypocrisy, is essential to any informed analysis of a speaker's message. That's presumably why reputable scholarly publishers inform readers of such conflicts. MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I admit it can be helpful. I recently read a report on the Fukushima nuclear disaster written by several Japanese academics. I noticed that it was edited by a US government scientist who I happen to know is heavily involved in environmental activism (if I said his name you would recognize it). It didn't necessarily discredit the paper, but it told me that I needed to more carefully examine the paper's argument and conclusions before deciding to believe it. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Of interest

I've mentioned your name here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing at the Transcendental Meditation movement articles

"Good grief. Is this what it's like to edit the TM topic? Are you guys constantly being accused of editing from work, COI, socking, and the like? If so, it's unbelievable that it has been allowed for you all to be treated this way for so long."--Cla68

The atmosphere for editing at the Transcendental Meditation articles (Template:Transcendental Meditation movement) has been most uncongenial for several years. Outside editors and admins have quickly felt overcome by the fumes and escaped as soon as they could. I was tolerated for awhile on the Talk page, but my edits rarely survived, and I finally left to escape the attacking.

Will BeBack has been the longest-term anti-TM editor, and with a notable exception or two is usually fair and polite, with no apparent POV agenda. I said at the start of the 2010 arbitration that I thought a good solution would be to ban all the current editors (including me for completeness) and allow only neutral editors to continue the work. That was considered obviously unworthy of consideration. I know an enormous amount about the subject matter, and am able to be neutral, but under the current owners of the article, who require scrupulous adherence to all WP policy, my expert input is not wanted or used.

The Talk pages of this set of articles are filled with petty arguments applying all the various policies in various combinations, and even some WP:Wikilawyering as well. The few changes that are approved for the articles give them lopsided information, even though all the policies are followed. When you read an article, every few words or sentences you are pulled first toward TM as a wonderful discovery for mankind, and then away from TM as being pseudoscientific claptrap. If two such extreme points of view must be presented, I would have preferred that they be separated, so readers can read each POV without interruption. David Spector (user/talk) 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. One way to fix an article that is in that situation, from what I've observed, is to completely rewrite the article on a page in your userspace (like I am currently doing here, although there aren't any content dispute problems with that article as far as I'm aware). Once you have it rewritten, link to it on the talk page of the actual article and ask for comments/critiques. Once you have a version that most people agree on, move it over and paste on top of the current article. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that would be an enormous amount of work (it's not just one article!). I wish I had that time and patience and even the slightest expectation that it would be accepted by the editors who WP:OWN these articles. Let me be clear: you are recommending that I spend many days of time I do not have to create fair, balanced articles that do justice to all the topics. Then, you are recommending that I offer these articles to these completely polarized editors who amuse themselves by finding ways to insult each other without being even slightly un-WP:CIVIL, expecting that they will welcome my magnum opus with open arms and lovingly replace the current articles with mine. Were you, perhaps, attempting a bit of humor? (Your actual suggestion was far more fantastical: you suggested I be WP:BOLD and simply overwrite the articles with mine, inviting the fastest mass reversions ever seen on WP.) Instead of asking me to do the impossible, you and your fellow admins should work to improve the problem areas in WP. You say you don't know how to do that? Here is an idea: create a new procedure wherein all the editors sitting on an article (or, in this case, a whole group of articles) are blocked or banned (sorry, I don't know the technical difference) from editing those articles, with an unlimited expiration. Have some neutral editors lined up to take over. The new editors would read, research, and rewrite the articles, as needed, to bring them up to a good level of quality. Then the team of new editors would vanish into the night, leaving the articles in good shape, ready for additions as history unfolds. Such a new procedure would have stood a chance of being accepted earlier in WP's history, but now there is too much fondness for what exists, and too little imagination left for such a revolutionary concept. Wait, it's not actually revolutionary, since all I am talking about is enforcing WP:OWN. David Spector (user/talk) 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it is time consuming. It is, however, a workable way to fix an article. I have seen it done before in a way that was effective enough that the warring factions were forced to reluctantly agree that the proposed article was better-written, more neutral, and flowed better than the current faction-ridden article. Anyway, I'm not an admin. I think your idea, however, is workable, but the Wikimedia Foundation would block an attempt to do as you suggest, because they put higher priority on maximum participation than on building accurate, well-written, balanced articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

the Wikimedia Foundation ... put[s] higher priority on maximum participation than on building accurate, well-written, balanced articles. Ya got that right! Cla, I haven't fully followed that arbcase, but as a MEDRS person, I'm most uneasy about the proposed decisions. Admins don't understand WP:MEDRS, many editors don't respect it, who will watch that? I wonder if the arbs would even get it if not for a medicine editor (Cas) on the committee? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I meant about problems with articles was from partisan editors, not from expert or non-expert editors. Based on my experiences, some topic areas have editors who are experts in that topic, but who are also really, really politically biased. I agree with you that the medical articles need people who know what they are doing, but I would say even more important is that those people aren't trying to push a specific agenda, no matter how knowleadgeable they are on the subject. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But my specific question relates to the problem that very few admins on Wikipedia understand or even know of the existence of WP:MEDRS, much less how to determine if a source meets that guideline, so if an editor who previously violated that is being unbanned, but expected to comply with MEDRS, who will be watching that? It's a problem everywhere I edit medically: advocates use primary and lay media sources to push POV, and most admins and outside editors don't even realize the guideline breach, or that the way to solve the content disputes is to enforce adherence to MEDRS. The autism suite of articles was an enormous POV walled garden in 2006, and it got cleaned up when a group dove in and forced MEDRS compliance. (Kind of like what you're saying above, about getting it written right, problem disappear-- that happened there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I understand what you mean. Yes, in that case, admins need to understand how to enforce MEDRS and how to encourage compliance among well-meaning, but inexperienced editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how they will enforce it. I raised my question over on the arb board discussion, where I noticed some unbecoming grave dancing. Regardless of how one felt about those users, they are still real people, and I'm well aware that the kiddie admins are aiming for me, and plenty of them would like to dance on my grave next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If there are any pages that I could help out on by putting on my watchlist, please let me know which ones. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

I saw your suggestion on the RfC's talk page. I've already made a request for that [2]. You may wish to support it, because that too is decided by consensus. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Terrillja's talk page.
Message added 02:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Terrillja _talk 02:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

ARBCC topic ban lift request

[3] Note to self with link to keep this watched. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fiji Infantry Regiment

G'day, today I came across a question that you left on Talk:Fiji Infantry Regiment in November 2006. Sorry that no one has responded until now. I've left an answer there for you, if you are still interested. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

Is there any chance you could stop adding every news story about SI to that article? Wikipedia is expressly WP:NOTNEWS. We should not be listing a month by month chronology of every minor incursion, along with the obligatory calling of ambassadors and strongly worded statements. That whole chronology needs to be about 60-80% shorter than it actually is, and adding more and more incidents isn't helping...I just don't have time right now to do the major edits needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. If I wanted to know the history of the Senkaku Islands dispute, that's the kind of detail I would be interested in. I suggest at the end of each year we remove the bullet points of each incident and summarize them in a couple of paragraphs. Cla68 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That simply is not what Wikipedia does. We don't list year by year, event by event. We provide a summary overview of a dispute. Furthermore, we're never supposed to have bulleted lists when prose is acceptable. Instead, that article should have sections like "Encounters between naval vessels" and "Diplomatic efforts". What you're talking about simply isn't an encyclopedia article. Like i said, I'm not going to be making the changes right now, but it is on my long-term "to do list"; I'll seek talk page consensus before doing anything major, of course. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cla68/threat charges

User:Cla68/threat charges, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/threat charges (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/threat charges during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  Re:this. I recommend moving it to your talk page instead. They can delete your user page but policy prevents them from deleting your talk page. --Vanished User 13579 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Done. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon

In case there is some confusion, the family spokesman had already confirmed the reason for the suspension before Drmies took any action in this case. Drmies never claimed that the information was false or dubious, just that it shouldn't be included. Dragons flight (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Cla68 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• You said, at AN, "I don't think there would be an edit war, because currently et cetera." Now that is something I might agree with. I am not sure the many detractors (including you, I guess) understand that that was one of the things I was hoping for--that a consensus be established among a broader group of editors than just the three or four who were discussing the matter on the talk page. I don't know if you're still calling for my head or not, but you have to admit that there's some hysteria going on at AN. Oh, as I've said before, I am perfectly willing to be overruled by an admin, and the argument you brought up (half of which is cited above) is precisely the kind of thing that would be relevant. All this screaming from some editors about censorship and violations of sacred obligations will go nowhere, and I am sure you know that. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It has been my experience with articles about highly publicized media-intensive events, that things for the most part take care of themselves, because so many people are watching and participating with building the article, and the mass media is quick to confirm or publicize new details. I don't think I called for your head, just called for you to unlock the article since you locked it. I understand that its a fine line between enforcing BLP and getting in the way of trying to build a complete, up-to-date article. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I had passport photos taken today. My head actually looks a lot less attractive than I though it did. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Must be the haircut:) Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

selfreverted

seems you are right, the capital letters and the spelling 'ver-MOOTH' led me think its improper. i have self reverted , thanks for informing-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My doorstep

Do not darken my doorstep again. If you continue to follow me around the encyclopedia, I will seek a binding interaction ban between us. Hipocrite (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And I will participate in any arbcom case which is opened whereby the evidence is about your HOUNDing issues, for I too an greatly fatigued of your multi-year effort to "get me". We already saw your saga against SlimVirgin and later WMC...--MONGO 23:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, if you look higher up on that BLPN page, you will see I had participated in a previous discussion on the same issue, BEFORE you did. So, actually, you followed me to that topic. MONGO, same thing. You know that I was in the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks, so I have more than a passing interest in the topic. That's the only topic, as far as I know, where our paths of crossed in the last few years. You, however, have followed me around. A certain recent MfD vote ring any bells? For you two to follow me around and then accuse me of following YOU takes a lot of gall. While we're here, Hipocrite, stop threatening other editors and calling them racists. MONGO, why don't you and the other 9/11 editors stop the campaign against The Devil's Advocate? I will post this on both your talk pages to make sure you get it. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Cla68. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

fyi

You've been mentioned here. Nobody Ent 02:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited Senkaku Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Defense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising paid editing on your user page

Hi Cla68. I see that you are selling your editing services on your user page. I think that WP:NOTADVERTISING prohibits that sort of thing. Would you be willing to take that down? Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 05:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't violate WP:NOTADVERTISING. I am offering to improve the encyclopedia in exchange for compensation. There is no policy in Wikipedia that forbids that. Cla68 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider using the reward board instead? I note with some interest that in the 2009 paid editing RFC you indicated that you would take half as much money for an FA. If WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply, I think WP:UP#PROMO probably does. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 06:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It seems to fall within the limitations of WP:UP#PROMO to me, as it is related to Wikipedia, and it's not excessive. So long as Cla68 notifies this page and the talk pages of any articles that xe is paid to edit (though I wonder if the statement is actually serious) of xyr COI and abides by WP:COI, then this seems fair. I don't know how a business would ever stumble across this ad, so I doubt its effectiveness, but should you have any success, I recommend availing yourself of the services found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help; in particular, User:WWB Too provides an excellent model for appropriate COI editing behavior (and is, in fact, probably more cautious than strictly required). Of course, were Cla68 to add in animated gifs and flashing advertisements to call attention to this add, then WP:UP#PROMO might become relevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(also (talk page stalker)) While I personally don't approve of paid editing, Cla's right in that there's no rule against it as long as it's done in good faith (eg, editing rather than spaming). It seems sensible for editors offering paid editing services to display this on their user page as part of being transparent. Cla, if you get any takers, how would this work? I presume that you would make it clear which articles you'd been paid to edit - especially during assessment processes. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(also also (talk page stalker)) A very bold move. I've been operating under the impression that paid editors should not add content anywhere in Wikipedia that could be seen as a Call to action for others to hire them. Perhaps I am wrong? Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   10:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. Carry on I say, but just be careful. This seems to be an unusual thing, but so long as you stay neutral I really don't see what the fuss is about. It's just that paid editors have a tendency to be biased, so I would recommend that you be extremely careful here. But feel to edit I say! Good luck! Jesse V. (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Cla68 advertising his services as a paid Wikipedia editor. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Cla68, there seems to be general (but not unanimous) agreement at ANI that, while there is no policy forbidding you from being paid for editing, actively advertising your services on your userpage is inappropriate. Would you be willing to be cooperative and either remove the advertisement from your userpage, or at least refactor it such that it is no longer an advertisement but more of a disclosure that you are a paid editor? It's unlikely that you're getting much business from people randomly dropping in on your userpage, and it would be easier for everyone if you were cooperative rather than having people go to the trouble of starting RFC's about it. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• That's strange; the discussion has been going for all of three hours, too soon to judge consensus, but regardless of the short duration, I don't see that agreement at ANI at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• No, I don't see that consensus either. --John (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but Jimbo seems to agree. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 104#Am I out of line on this? It makes me sick to my stomach, and I think it's violative of our ToS as well ‑Scottywong| comment _ 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo and Cla have been bitching and trolling at each other for ages. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

While some may wikilawyer that the guideline WP:UP#PROMO does not apply because of the connection to Wikipedia, the policy WP:SOAP is very clear "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." Please remove the advertisement now. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Red pen, this is not the place for this discussion, especially since the current discussion at ANI does not support your position. At best, there is no consensus on the statement. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Show me one person who is saying the POLICY WP:NOT is not being flagrantly violated? Yes there are lots of people who are saying the wording of the GUIDELINE WP:UP#PROMO might allow it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nick, I imagine that someday soon it will make more sense for FA nominators who weren't paid to declare such when making a nomination, because I believe that most editors who take the time to take an article to FA-level quality will be paid to do so. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • @Cla68: I'll give you a barnstar if you help me get List of self-publishing companies to WP:GA status. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOAP speaks of article space, external links, articles about companies. Here we have a simple announcement on a user page, without more.

We also have a lot of soapboxing, but not from Cla68. Kablammo (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that you skipped down too far. It starts out quite clearly: [[WP:SOAP|"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."]] -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Pen is right, WP:SOAP is policy, CLA68's ad fails this policy and needs to be removed per that same policy.

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 16:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no consensus at the now closed discussion that this user page should be exempt from Policy, I have removed the inappropriate content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Join the CLub

		The Jimbo Finds Me Offensive Barnstar of Infamy
		You have disagreed with Jimbo, and Jimbo ain't happy. What's even worse is that you haven't apologized to Jimbo, this makes Jimbo mad. Never stare a mad Jimbo in the eyes as it usually results in a desysopping. The Jimbo can now only be placated with a WikiLove template on his talkpage, accompanied by decorous praise.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, my main criticism is that you list your price... that's just bad business practice.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Worse, you've pitched it so low you'll ruin it for the rest of us. For example my standard charge is $250 per article edit, and in a special deal with the Association of Manufacturers of Industrial Acids I get $450 for each caustic comment I post about meretricious complaints on the noticeboards. How are editors like me going to make an honest living from Wikipedia now? You've started a price war that will surely lead to school kids advertising FAs for a couple of ecstasy tabs a pop. Shame on you. Writegeist (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I was hoping to charge more than that. Maybe I can make my name brand well-known through flash ads?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Orangemike

My statement was intended to stir things up a little by forcing a discussion on the issue of paid editing. The correct thing that Orange Mike and the others who think like him should have done was to ignore me. Of course, they apparently don't have sufficient situational awareness to realize that. By bringing it up in administrative forums and Jimbo's talk page, they have now likely cemented it in place as an acceptable practice. The thing is, if someone really is willing to pay me that much for a FA-level article, I am willing to accept and do it.

Hmmm. I thought that Orangemike should have contacted you on your talk page first, before taking it to ANI. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I see now that he filed after Gobonobo contacted you. Still, it would be nice if the filing editor attempts to resolve the issue as well, although this isn't always possible. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that OrangeMike took it to ANI, because we now have it established after discussion in an administrative forum that openly editing for pay is allowed by Wikipedia's policies and culture. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Need your advice... taking your idea and gonna make millions!

Hey Cla, I need your advice... now there are some people who have the talent/skill/and writing ability that they can help an article progress to FA status. At the same time, there are other editors whose mastery of the English language dictates that the encyclopedia would be better off NOT editing. To that extent, I would cast myself in the later categroy... so I was thinking, for a mere five dollars per article, I will agree NEVER To edit said article... I figure that all I have to do is get people to pay me not to edit 1% of the articles out there and I'll be able to retire!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to apply to the federal government. Only they pay people not to do stuff![4]--regentspark (comment) 16:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ROFL. I just bought John Stossel's book "No They Can't". I think you know where my position is, I don't need to say anymore. Jesse V. (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I will look into buying that book for my Kindle. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for amendment Climate Control

Your request for amendment has been declined. No motion or conclusive support for the lifting of the topic ban was achieved. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Hey Cla, I protected your userpage because of the edit warring. If you'd like to make an edit to it, let me know and I can unprotect it or make the change for you, whatever you'd prefer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion at the administrators notice boards

A discussion has been initiated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Advertisement_on_user_page about whether or not the community will come to a consensus to allow an advertisement on your user page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not the advertisement is real, but if it is, I think all this fuss is doing a better job of advertizing Cla68's services than a post on a user page ever could :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The post on Jimbo's talk page was especially helpful in getting the word out. Jimbo's talk page is likely the most watched user talk page in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You've made your point and started up several new discussions. Would you be willing to remove the advertisement until those discussions are finished? --Onorem♠Dil 17:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I just noticed this whole thing and I find the hyperventilation hilarious. I was wikignoming for a long time, not paying attention to Wikipedia space - and I just found out I missed the de-sysopping and banning of the insufferable Wont Beback. Many thanks for your work on that case, and bravo on your current endeavors. Kelly ^hi! 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to your comment above about Jimbo's talk page... That's nuts! I've never seen so many people watching a single page! How do they get any work done? I have to take pages off my watchlist when they get over 30 edits in a day because it's too distracting. I kind of feel sorry for poor Jimbo who can't "unwatch" his own talk page that looks like it gets around 100 edits daily. And to have to constantly deal with that little orange notification that you have new messages... Well, I'm going to shove off and quit bugging you on your talk page. Good luck. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Queries

Cla, 'tis an impressive list of FAs on your user page.

You may have noticed that I came out in favour of allowing paid editing at the debate. However, that was a purely pragmatic view; paid editing involves a nest of moral and logistic issues that the project doesn't seem willing or able to manage—at least not yet.

I noticed during a quick glance, "You can't have too many footnotes, but you can have too little." First, having seen a lot of FA candidates in which reftags litter the text, some of them clearly redundant and defensive, I quaver at your encouragement. Editors need to be a bit discriminating to avoid, for example, the same reftag number after three or four consecutive sentences—that's irritating to readers. You don't see reftag bloat in academic articles.

You might consider correcting the grammar: "You can't have too many footnotes, but you can have too little few."

Does your fee depend on whether the nomination succeeds? Will you declare at the nom page that you've been paid to do it? Do you have a personal code of ethics for your clients to read and understand? [PS as an afterthought, I guess I'm partly asking these questions as possible Signpost coverage, so you may wish to respond by email.]s

Cheers, Tony (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I LOL'd at the grammar correction. That's one of the nuiances of the language that I'd never pick up on. But I agree, the flat rate isn't a good method... is the rate the same for a scientific articles as for something you are familiar with? What about something where finding sources might be hard/nigh impossible.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for the critique and grammar correction. I will fix that. Since I don't have any control over the FA process, and that is how it should be, I will probably need to change the wording of my offer to "FA-level quality". I can and will promise to make the articles I work on as complete as possible based on the sourcing available and that I will submit them for FA consideration. I haven't decided yet if I will declare for each article if I am being compensated or not, I may leave that up to the client. I probably should write a personal code of ethics, that's a good idea. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think disclosure would be expected. Again, while I don't mind your mentioning that you are willing to work for $$$, and appreciate that you will announce it, I do think your "advertisement" should be a little less blatant. E.g. Cla68 is a professional writer who is willing to improve articles on Wikipedia for a fee. For more information see [link]. If it was that, then you couldn't possibly be criticized (beyond the scope of people who don't believe in paid writing) but it undermines the advertising bit. (I mean, it would be full disclosure and a link to your business---which many people do.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cla68

User:Cla68, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I really expected better than this of you. Cla68 - ya made your point, kin we stop with the zOMG dramaz now? I get it. Everyone gets it. Yea .. people get paid to edit here. It's not a big shock to anyone with half a brain. But then again, hey - if ya get that $1000 .. well then - good on you. — Ched :  ?  20:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Goodness. I'm not going near there, but will someone tell Wehwalt he can't vote twice? On the same day, noless! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually glad it was done. We have a policy already in place that bans advertisments, and yet, certain sysops seem to want to ignore it and insist on consensus where one already exists, instead of action. Good work , BWilkins @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, no logical fallacies please. You lose any chance at a higher moral ground when you resort to such tactics. By the way, my userpage is not currently against any policy in Wikipedia. If you don't like it, you need to try to change the policies, not try to nominate my userpage for deletion. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

@Cla68He doesn't have to WP:SOAP already is policy. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 23:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read SOAP very carefully. I did. It does not prohibit announcing your services or availability to improve Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read it carefully. Looks like you missed the top couple of lines:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

Consensus already exists in the form of this policy. Remove the add already @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 11:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Two appearances at ANI, Jimbo's page, and Rfc... and an MFD? Sounds like Forum Shopping to me.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Consequences: undisclosed COI editing, arbcom acceptance of COI editing, lax notability standards

Nice back story at Douglas E. Lynch (see talk also). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Paiding editing prediction

Hi. I saw this edit of yours. I'm curious: is there a particular reason that you're making this prediction now? It's been over eleven years since Creation and from where I'm standing, I haven't seen much to suggest that a change is gonna come. If you don't mind sharing, what are you seeing that leads you to believe that a dramatic increase in paid editing is impending? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I could very well be wrong, of course, but I get the impression that there are a number of Wikipedia observers/participants who would like to be paid to edit, and are simply waiting for a time when community resistance to it is low enough to allow them to do so without being blocked, hectored, or ridiculed. I think that time is happening now. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe. The problem, of course, is that mobs are often uncontrollable. What's acceptable (or unopposed) today can quickly be condemned tomorrow.

I had a run-in with a paid editor recently at MarkMonitor. King4057 is very upfront and open about his conflicts of interest and he diligently used the talk page and a user subpage draft. If every paid editor acted as he did, there really would be no problem. The current approach by (particular) paid editors is a "radical transparency" approach, it seems. The idea is that if you do everything out in the open, you can't later be punished because everyone was aware of what you were doing and who you were doing it for. It's a novel approach and it seems to be working fairly well for paid editors... for now. It wouldn't surprise me if ultimately these editors were digging their own graves. The old guard still has the influence and the administrative power. I'm not sure we'll see any big shifts while this remains the case. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to be paid, I would change the bit on your page that says "I am 43-years old." Not the best advert. Ericoides (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Um ... he's too young? Tony (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As you very well know, the clue's in the edit summary. Ericoides (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Not supposed to be a hyphen? I fixed it, thank you. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

MZM, not all of the "old guard" is against paid editing -- not that I have much influence here any more. In the last couple of years I find myself cringing whenever Jimmy Wales inserts himself into a dispute; he has a remarkable knack for either picking the worst side in a dispute or, when he has a good point, finding the most unproductive way to advocate for it. -- llywrch (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oooh llywrch, hearing another person say that makes me feel so very happy. Not that the Jimbo is capable of recognizing criticism like that. I can tell you that from personal experience. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think disclosure is enough. Paid editors that create otherwise complete articles with major omission (ie "hide information") or other forms of manipulation are still open to criticism. This editor disclosed, but her editing still really bothered me. I think Wikipedia editors are sometimes overly sympathetic to the editor too, such that PRs that disclose and use Talk can have an undue influence. What disclosure should award someone is a stronger leniency to AGF, but not protection from criticism. Even in the dated and somewhat poor example of my work (this is King4057), we added controversies, etc. The best defense against criticism is to just do good work, be fair and honest, use citations properly, disclose even less flattering events. I think Wikipedians care most about the outcome (a better encyclopedia) and the process takes a back-seat to that. But it just makes sense to leave all the final content decisions in the hands of someone that serves the reader's best interest, just like I would in traditional PR with a publication, where I might offer a contributed article that is vetted and posted by someone who serves the reader. My rant. :-D CorporateM (Talk) 22:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The MFD of your Page is at DRV

The MFD closure of your page is now at drv---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)

This is a note to let the main editors of Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 3, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 3, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The invasion of Tulagi, on 3–4 May 1942, was part of Operation Mo, the Empire of Japan's strategy in the South Pacific and South West Pacific Area in 1942. The plan called for Imperial Japanese Navy troops to capture Tulagi and nearby islands in the Solomon Islands Protectorate. The occupation of Tulagi by the Japanese was intended to cover the flank of and provide reconnaissance support for Japanese forces that were advancing on Port Moresby in New Guinea, provide greater defensive depth for the major Japanese base at Rabaul, and serve as a base for Japanese forces to threaten and interdict the supply and communication routes between the United States and Australia and New Zealand. Without the means to capably resist the Japanese offensive in the Solomons, the British Resident Commissioner and the few Australian troops assigned to defend Tulagi evacuated just before the Japanese forces arrived on 3 May. Despite considerable losses inflicted by carrier-based American planes, the Japanese occupied the islands. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just curious to see how this might look

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Cla68&oldid=490249978 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs)

I liked it and kept it. Thank you very much. Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Editing

• I nominate you as the first Coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Editing (please see this). I will propose some suitable barnstars next weekend...no wait, User:Avanu can do it... – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not really on a side in this debate. I simply don't have a problem with paid editing being allowed or banned. It doesn't matter to me either way and I'm simply interested in a reasonable debate and reasonable solutions. -- Avanu (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How would WP policy dictate a potential client contact an editor willing to work for pay?

My first question is whether or not WP policy requires that the paid editor be a neutral, uninvolved editor never previously associated with the page to be edited for pay or any WikiProjects linked to it?

My second question is whether WP policy requires the person or organization that would potentially hire the paid editor be never previously associated with the page to be edited for pay or any WikiProjects linked to it?

My third question is how is someone who wants to pay an editor supposed to contact that editor? I feel certain contacting that editor on WP would be a violation. Am I correct in that?

Sincerely,

Factseducado (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Any such policies would be unenforceable by WP. WP couldn't regulate how/where/how much/etc a paid editee received from a company/university/political group/etc. The only thing WP could do is regulate what occurs here. What paid editors are supposed to do relative to self disclosure/failure to disclose. How paid editors are to be treated/regarded. How their edits are to be reviewed. Etc. It might be a case where flagged revisions comes into place when a paid editor works on an article. The problem that you suppose, supposes that a person is hired directly to work on WP. But I suspect a fair number of them end up doing so as a byproduct of their job. I suspect that the majority of CURRENT paid editors are office employees whose job it is to monitor their companies articles or improve educational material around their companies products. Another form of paid editor might stem from a company who discovers a need to improve ancillary articles. E.g. A chemical engineer might find it advantageous to improve the articles on certain checmicals/processes as they know potential clients might come here to figure out what the chemist is saying. The intention might not be to sell anything, but to educate so that the client can better understand what the company does. The one thing that can be done is making Q3 part of the policy... no on wiki contact.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict; I haven't yet read Balloonman's post]

(1) There's no policy or guideline preventing paid editing, nor regulating its interpersonal circumstances. The current situation—which I can't see changing—is that no one, whether paid editor, client, or volunteer editor, has to be personally neutral about anything; what does matter is that your edits be neutral. For example, I hold extremely antagonistic views about religion, to which I'm required to and do apply a strong neutralising filter when it comes to direct edits and comments on talk pages. I expect editors of opposite views to do the same. This is part of the genius (in that word's older sense) of the project.

(2) There's no such requirement. Again, all we can reliably go by—and the only thing that matters in the end for our readers and the project's public reputation of non-commercial neutrality—is the product. Paid editors, in my view, need to spell out to clients the rules of the game in terms of balance and neutrality. There are plenty of organisations and people who want balanced and neutral articles about themselves.

(3) Through the "Email this user" button to the left. Tony (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with everything Tony says... I have biases too... but my biases are, hopefully, countered by A) myself and B) those who hold the opposite view. I think having user boxes on pages helps in this regard, because people can go there and see what my potential biases might be. It also helps because it helps to self-declare myself as a a person interested in a subject. It shows that I am both knowledgable on the subject and potentially biased on the subject. A paid editor would similalry be knowledgable on the subject and biased on the subject---but right now we have no controls/mechanisms to identify such.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony and Baloonman, the information you provided has been helpful. Thank you for clarifying these WP policies. Sincerely, Factseducado (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

double curly brackets You've got mail

Hello, Cla68. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Factseducado (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a hello

Cla, good to see you (at Viriditas) -- did your CC block finally expire? If so, you may want to look in at Talk:Climategate -- as I'm making Yet Another try at making this a bit more NPOV-compliant. Hope all is well -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Good morning! No, I'm still not allowed to talk about that subject. I can ask again in about six months for the ban to be lifted. If there's any other topic you would like to talk about, however, I'm free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

Perhaps you don't understand. I don't respond to you on article talk pages. I don't respond to you on project pages. I avoid every topic you are actively involved in. I don't respond to you on my talk page. I don't allow you to have conversations with other people on my talk page. I've asked you multiple times to leave me alone. We do not interact well together. Please leave me alone. Hipocrite (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, Hipocrite, and you have yet to answer this question, if you don't want to interact with me, then why did you show up at a topic two months ago that I have edited for years? It doesn't make sense. Could you please answer the question? Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If I answer your question, will you accept a binding page ban from my talk page? Hipocrite (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, Hipocrite. If we are going to participate in the same topic area, then Wikipedia's mechanisms for dispute resolution, as well as open compromise, collaboration, and cooperation, need to be open for both of us to use. This means that we need to be able to post to each others' talk pages. Notice that I haven't banned you from my talk page, told you to keep your distance, or anything like that. Like I said, I have been editing the LaRouche topic for years. You started participating there about two months ago, which is odd since you seem to want to avoid me. If you are going to participate there, you are going to have to find a way to cooperate and communicate with me, because that's how the wiki works. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite, it's just not practical (socially or in terms of policies and guidelines) to impose these orders on another user, and it would make you look stronger and bigger if you maintained a more laissez-faire attitude to the matter. Tony (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: American cuisine

I'm no longer participating in the discussion over at Template talk:American cuisine, but I wanted to bring something to your attention. In the discussion, you proposed several images for use in the series navbox.[5] However, none of the navboxes that are used in the featured articles you've worked on have images. This is similar to the footer currently in use in all of the American cuisine articles, namely {{Cuisine of the United States}}. In most of your FA's, you start off with an infobox about a specific military campaign, which typically features an image. Most of the regional cuisine articles that use this template should be structured in the same way.[6] For example, we should have an {{Infobox cuisine}} that features information about the specific cuisine (let's say Hawaiian cuisine) with an image of that particular cuisine in the lead. Beneath that infobox, we should have navigational templates without images, similar to the ones you use beneath all of your infoboxes; for example in Battle of the Eastern Solomons, you have the infobox in the lead followed by several navigational campaign boxes. In the same way, each regional cuisine article in the American cuisine set should have an {{American cuisine}} template without an image, providing only a text interface for navigating related articles. Would you be willing to support this idea based on your own usage in MILHIST articles? Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. By the way, I was reading a December 2011 Forbes today that someone gave me, and in an article about Smashburger, it said that Americans eat 13 billion burgers a year, 43 for every man, woman, and child. Fifty percent of Americans eat at least one burger a week, according to the article (Colao, J.J., "Here's the Beef", Forbes, 19 December 2011, pp. 104-108). Anyway, I don't think it's such a big deal if there is a picture with the nav box or not or what it is. Cla68 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I addressed a similar point earlier in the discussion, so it's possible you missed it: According to the American Meat Institute, the consumption of beef in the U.S. has been in decline since the 1970s, while chicken and turkey consumption has been on the increase. In 2007, per capita beef consumption was 65 pounds (33.2 was hamburger) while Americans consumed 86.5 pounds of chicken and 17.3 pounds of turkey per person.[8] According to 2012 data, beef consumption has dropped as much as 12% per capita since the 2007 numbers were released. Anyhoo, the bottom line for me is that we need to use navboxes for navigation, and you've done that extremely well in your own work. This tells me you are not just writing for editors but for readers, and I respect that because that's the kind of viewpoint we need; too many editors make changes based on what they desire, forgetting that we are writing and adding content for an audience other than ourselves. To me at least, there seems to be an inability to see beyond our own noses when it comes to content work. Btw, how much would you charge to bring peace to FA? ;-) Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that the number of hamburgers consumed doesn't necessarily lend itself to a weight comparison, because perhaps most hamburgers carry less meat than is often consumed when people eat chicken or turkey in one sitting, so numbers of hamburgers consumed in one sitting might outnumber number of meals of chicken or turkey, but maybe not. Anyway, my criteria in choosing a picture for navigation boxes, such as this one was simply because it was a visually striking picture. We really need to give peace a chance at FA, don't we? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You could do it for charity! :) Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga

This is a note to let the main editors of Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 4, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 4, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Kaga was an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Originally intended to be one of two Tosa-class battleships, Kaga was converted under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty into an aircraft carrier as the replacement for the battlecruiser Amagi, which had been damaged during the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake. Kaga's aircraft first supported Japanese troops in China during the Shanghai Incident of 1932 and participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s. With other carriers, she took part in the Pearl Harbor raid in December 1941 and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942. The following month her aircraft participated in a combined carrier airstrike on Darwin, Australia, helping secure the conquest of the Dutch East Indies by Japanese forces. During the Battle of Midway in June, Kaga and the other carriers were attacked by American aircraft from Midway Atoll and the carriers Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown. Dive bombers from Enterprise severely damaged Kaga; when it became obvious she could not be saved, she was scuttled by Japanese destroyers to prevent her from falling into enemy hands. In 1999, debris from Kaga was located on the ocean floor; the main body of the carrier has not yet been found. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, please post the diffs for your assertions posted on the evidence page ASAP. Otherwise, I will remove your statement as an unfounded, unsupported assertion.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In the future, plan and organize your evidence in a sandbox before you post it on the evidence page. Do your best to submit completed arguments/evidence. Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a portion of your evidence which links to a discussion that was hatted as an unfounded and unsubstantiated list of diffs against RfC participants. If you have specific and egregious examples, post those independently. Do not post a link to a discussion and list of diffs that, broadly speaking, doesn't support the assertion. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit war with one of the case clerks. It is the quickest way to find yourself topic banned from the case --Guerillero | My Talk 00:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I only edit war with ArbCom clerks when I haven't done anything wrong. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You edit war with the Arbitration Committee's clerks at your own peril. They act with the authority of the Committee on behalf of the Committee - if you are directed by a clerk to do (or not do) something, then very likely an Arbitrator has asked them to do so or agreed that it's the appropriate action to take. This is the case here. Do not edit war with clerks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless an arbitrator tells me to remove it, I will present evidence as permitted by the case rules. If I get blocked...well, sometimes you have to stand up for yourself when you think you're right. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd just point something out to you then... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So if diffs relate to things that were "hatted" they aren't permitted? That strikes me as making it rather easy for those in power to prevent those outside of power from providing evidence. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Advice to the clerks...you all usually do a really good job. If, however, you do something that gets in the way of someone trying to present evidence, with diffs, which is the entire point of evidence, then you may be incorrectly interpreting your instructions. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

See Hersfold's comment above. If you would like to offer evidence about personal attacks made during the RFC, the best way is in this format: "In actu said X [1] [2] [3] [4]." Make sure that the diffs support the accusations you are trying to make. Using the kitchen sink method, like TParis pointed in his hatting statement, isn't going to work. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification in case no one recalls, my actions including blocking Cla68 and hating that discussion was mostly rejected as legitimate admin actions by the community in a review shortly after the block. I'm not questioning the Arbclerk, but if rejecting the evidence is related to my hat then I'd suggest simply removing the hat. Not trying to upset anyone, but I want all things to be properly considered by the Arbclerk when deciding what to do. I've no opinion on the edit war or whether or not Cla68 can use it. My only concern is that you guys are fully informed that the post-review was critical of my actions.--v/r - TP 02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been lurking this case - it's interesting to me, but I haven't had enough interaction with the parties to get involved, nor do I feel strongly about it one way or another. I have a question about the Russavia diff in your evidence, though. Considering the comment at the top of that page (entitled "Just quit already") and signed by the charming username "Ash=Fae=F4g" (eyeroll), wouldn't AGF suggest that Russavia was legitimately referring to that comment? Again, I'm just honestly curious, and I'm not involved; I won't mind if you don't want to answer. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought Russavia was responding to Volunteer Marek's request, but if he was responding to a trolling comment, then that may mitigate his/her remark. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I mean, I see how you got there, since Russavia's comment was a new section at the bottom of the page, and the troll I'm referring to was at the top. It's mostly just that the trolling provided some amiguity to the situation. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	education in training
	Thank you for your profound coverage of topics around Japanese military history and martial arts, and for your free advice how to write articles of a quality ready to be featured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long (Fae case)

Hello, Cla68. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Fæ Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 408 words and 80 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 05:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Cla68! As you've already been granted an exception for your evidence, it would be great if you could remove your five least favorite diffs to bring you in line with the limit SirFozzie set. If you could please do this over the weekend, that would be very helpful. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have no preference Lord Roem. If you need to blank my entire evidence section to comply with ArbCom evidentiary protocol, I'm fine with it. Do what you need to do. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• If it would be permitted and/or helpful, I could copy the "traveling circus" part to my own section and thus drastically reduce the diff numbers on Cla's section. The only diff I was going to put in about the accountability issue was this one, just for the purpose of documentation. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you SB_Johnny, that sounds like a good compromise :). Lord Roem (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, will do as soon as I can, and leave it to you two to clear out whatever needs to be cleared from Cla's section. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• All done (I assume it's fine for Cla to just link to my section to replace that part of his own). Thanks for the understanding, Lord Roem (arbitrary rules for arbitration sure can be a pain, eh?) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks SB. Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:American cuisine

I set a poll up here, please contribute. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

RFAR Perth opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 6, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Request

Please do not comment on my talkpage anymore. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you stop edit warring? Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

International Award

Hello Cla68,

I just realized that I missed to tell you that the translation of your article Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo I made got awararded as Lesenswert () in the german Wikipedia and probably will be featured article of the day on 7 August. Lesenswert is equivalent to A-Class in en:Wiki. I work together with an other user in de:Wiki who just made some maps and got some new sources published between 2007 and 2009 highlighting the japanese side of combat to get the article on featured status. If you want I can inform you about interesting sources worth to also put into the english article. Until that thank you for the excellent article. Regards --Bomzibar (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Banning

If you look at Fasttimes68 recent contributions page, you will see that it has gotten obsessive and frankly, pretty bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fasttimes68&dir=prev&offset=20120204183018&limit=500&target=Fasttimes68 Also note that he and the banned user JuliannaRoseMauriello http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JuliannaRoseMauriello&offset=&limit=500&target=JuliannaRoseMauriello have the same obsession with Adams, sockpuppets, and more. Can they be the same person? There is a distinct pattern. One more thought, Hoary is just as bad. Look here. http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikifam=.wikipedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-edit_count&page=Stephanie+Adams&max=1000&grouped=on&ofs=0&max=1000 CYHWT (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics.
Message added User:Sport and politics. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sport and politics (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Japan Times "Taisho Democracy" article

Superb. I was interested to read in Japanese Wikipedia about influential grandson 昌三, who ran JARL for more than 40 years. LittleBen (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Revert Warring

I am just going to say this If you claim Revert warring once more which is wholly unwarranted as you have now done twice I will report you for being highly uncivil and for taking article ownership. Stop making unwarranted claims which are constituting a personal attack on my character. Sport and politics (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Cla68. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sport and politics (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Could you check Toyoaki Horiuchi ?

Hello! Could you check Toyoaki Horiuchi, a Japanese captain. It should be improved in many respects. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Barefoot running

Aloha. If you are interested, feel free to participate in the Talk:Barefoot running/GA1 review. The more experts with eyes on this, the better. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign format changes

Hello. You are among the top contributors to this Featured Article. Work has begun on changing the citation format and referencing conventions in use on the article. There is a discussion underway at the talk page for the article. Feel free to participate. Kablammo (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your implication that I am not telling the truth

In the thread about Peter Damian you claim my allegations are false. Here's the email: Several respected members of the Wikimedia community – and several members of our charity – have approached us voicing their concerns about (Redacted), an ex-Wikipedia user who was banned from the project for harassing volunteers on and off Wikipedia. Given his past and present conduct, which includes harassment and publishing personal details of Wikimedians, we do not feel that we can guarantee the security of our volunteers if he is permitted to attend our events.

To that end, Wikimedia UK have banned (Redacted) (known on Wikipedia as User:Peter Damian) from attending any Chapter-run events (not including the London meetups) until further notice. (Redacted) is, of course, still welcome to communicate with the charity through email and post, and this ban is subject to review in future if circumstances change.

For the Wikimedia UK Board of Trustees, Richard Symonds Office & Development Manager Wikimedia UK

Would you like to strike your post? Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman said, "he's also participated in deliberate off-wiki outing and harassment of Wikipedians." You answered, "Just to add that Prioryman is correct here. Earlier this year he was banned from UK Wikimedia chapter-run events (excluding London meetings) because of this." After Peter Damian pointed out to WM UK that the email statement was false and defamatory, it was removed from the mailing list. So, to keep repeating something that has been retracted is dishonest and disingenuous. Also, did you know that you're not supposed to out the real names of anonymous editing accounts on Wikipedia as you just did? You just did what you accuse him of doing. Why is it ok for you to do what you accuse him of doing? Cla68 (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've rev/del'd my post. The ban took place. Whether it was undone I don't know. Do you actually know it was undone, or that the email was removed from the mailing list? I thought his real name was known here. I'd never out deliberately and you probably know that. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, Cla68, do you think that posting a link to the outing on WP:AN was remotely sensible? That will just attract dozens of editors to look at the outing. Next time, just quietly remove the information and email oversight to have the information removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If he'd told me I'd have dealt with it - he could have done that and emailed Oversight. Peter Damian said he wouldn't appeal the ban, he contested the charges. I'm checking on the status of the ban. In any case, it took place and was made for the reasons given. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole post needs redacting as it is far too easy to find PD's identity from the above.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because an accusation is made does not mean that it is correct. The email in question was redacted, the ban overturned. Nothing has changed as far as PD is concerned, he has, subsequently, neither done nor said anything that would warrant redacting the email and overturning the ban if either had been valid in the first place. That members of WMUK mailing lists are running around the interwebs spreading falsehoods is unfortunate but not surprising. John lilburne (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a comment on this tomorrow. I don't think anyone is running around deliberately spreading falsehoods. So far as I know, the relationship now between Peter Damian and WMUK is cordial. The outing claim was incorrect as he outed himself 3 years ago on Jimbo's page (as I pointed out at WP:AN but I wouldn't expect Cla68 to have known that. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly cordial if you're still "banning" him individually from your get-togethers. I could understand not inviting people who are banned from editing WP (since that's the whole point), but then that would be tricky too given recent events. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not me as I'm just a member and such things would be done by the board, but I am trying to clarify the situation about the ban, which I think has been rescinded but as I'm not positive about that I can only say what I know. I'll be able to say more later on today. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't happen and as it's the weekend tomorrow can't happen until Monday at the earliest, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

They call it stormy Monday, yes but Tuesday's just as bad. Wednesday's even worse; Thursday's awful sad.

Perhaps the Eagle will fly of Friday. John lilburne (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another fuzz about "religiosity" and "atheism"..

Hello '68 !

I wanted to thank you for coming as reinforcement when you saw that a contribution about new statistics on atheism in the world had twice been blanked out.. even before it had any chance to reach WP's readership...

As i happened to come across the talk page of "Vobisdu", i even noticed that you were rather firm in trying to "cool" him down !

First, i must also plead (partially) guilty, and admit that i should have refrain my [bloody] habit, to write as i speak, i.e. : passionately ! Hence, all those bold type letters, plus the italics etc..

(Fortunately, WP didn't use the apostrophes' trick for underlining, so it's too boring to put all these mark-ups, otherwise, my posts would also be plagued with it !)

Apart from that "text-wrapping" bug... could you tell me what's happening with en:wikipedia in those days and age ???

I had been a wikipedian, "in another life", since 2005, but i took a (very) long wikileave. Then i decided to "get back to it" earlier this year, but i feel completely flabbergasted : this kind of mishap about a text only based on facts (reliable and indisputable figures about certain categories of people) would never have taken place, as far as i can remember, by the time i was an "eminent" contributor in the mid-2000's ! ! !

Do you happen to know about these characters (no names : "no personal attacks"), who have been so active on this "Atheism-talk page" fuzz recently... ????

I have never indulged in paranoïa. So, i'm not saying that there is a conspiracy among those three (or others). It just seems to me that they all are "firm against the wind" to try to tear apart in several shreds, or delay as long as possible the wp-emergence of the results of the Gallup study...

I dived back into all these archived (and desperate) battles against the "reliability" of the sources saying, for example, that higher educated people tend to become less religious (a detail to which, by the way, i don't give a damn personnaly).

I cannot not notice that a certain number of religious contributors are permanently mobilized to sneak their POV, everywhere they can, even against obvious "adverse" consensus...

Did you notice anything like that ? Is it a "known fact" among NPOV wikipedians ???

Forgive my long message..

If you've got a moment to drop me a few lines on my talk-page --or, if you prefer, on my email--, i would greatly appreciate.

Hasta la vista !

--Mezzkal (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic

Your trolling and edit-warring over the AN/I thread title is pathetic. Grow up. Prioryman (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, didn't you ban me some time ago from posting to your talk page? If so, why are you posting to mine (even though you always will be free to do so)? Cla68 (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

I'd be happy to discuss content with you in a civil way. And we could do it here so we don't inflame the situation.Momento (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Technologies used in cycling

I'd like to thank you for giving me support during the the initial stages of this article. As expected it was very controversial and despite all my efforts and patience, the situation may be getting out of control, so if I'm not in a position to come back to this page, thank you again.--Andromedean (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Due to the attempted removal of this article again, it is subject to the Dispute Resolution procedure. As you were involved in the early stages perhaps your experience would be useful? It has however changed substantially since then including the title.--Andromedean (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI on IP at Long War Journal

I just started an ANI on the IP editor for repeatedly restoring material that was removed per RfC at Long War Journal. Since you participated in the RfC, this notice is just an FYI. You are not mentioned in the ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 19:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP committee

Cla, further to the idea of a BLP committee I raised a few weeks ago, please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Brainstorming:_How_can_we_improve_the_Wikipedia_complaints_system.3F. Best, JN466 13:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 Camp Bastion raid

Just FYI I created a DYK for the Camp bastion raid and listed you as a co-author, since you've put quite a bit of work into it as well. Palm_Dogg (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work on Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews of Military history project articles for the period Jul–Sep 12, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

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

Death of Osama bin Laden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vanity Fair

The Situation Room (photograph) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vanity Fair

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion about postings of Echigo mole

An ipsock of Echigo mole left a trolling notification on your user talk page. I removed it since the editor placing it, using an illegal anonymising tor node, has been identified and blocked for 3 years. The edit has already been placed among a series of edits by 3 ipsocks of Echigo mole (see the latetst series of SPI report, Oct 16 & Oct 20). The removal is covered by the recent arbcom motion and those challenging it or trying to enable Echigo mole, as you now seem to be doing, could easily find themselves being blocked under the current motion passed by the arbitration committee. Please read that through that motion [7] and look at the most recent SPI reports and block logs of IPsocks on Echigo mole. Roger Davies carefully explained to you a month or more ago the problems with the banned editor Echigo mole. Perhaps you could go back and reread what he wrote. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the diff. Everyone, please feel free to read it and see how dangerous and subversive it is. This is the first time someone has ever removed a non-vandalism diff from my talk page. It this isn't Battleground behavior by Mathsci, I don't know what is. Cla68 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you are more than aware that SPI reports rarely involve single diffs in isolation. They rely on comparisons between different edits/editors. If you find it hard to follow the SPI reports or to understand the motion recently passed by arbcom, there are administrators out there willing to help you. Good luck, Mathsci (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I replied at the enforcement board. Just a word of advice based on my own experience...when editing WP starts be a contest of wills between you and some anonymous yahoo, then it's best to step away and gain some perspective. Cla68 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci keeps saying that you were talking to Roger Davies about this, but I don't see where this conversation took place. Was it off-wiki?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we had an exchange of opinions during the amendment/clarification request you posted awhile ago. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, how does Mathsci know that the IP is a sock of that user? There doesn't appear to be a SPI and the IP hasn't been blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Mathsci, could you point to the administrative forum where it was decided that this IP was a banned editor? Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP was blocked as a Tor node. That pretty much makes it a duck with a shovel. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. So, where was this discussed before Mathsci removed the comment from my page, and why didn't an admin remove it instead of one of the parties to this ongoing conflict? Cla68 (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know nothing of the specifics. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

comment removed, since superseded (see below)

FYI

Please see WP:AE, where, on the advice of Future Perfect at Sunrise, you have been added as an additional independent party in the ongoing request. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Per this AE thread, you are indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with, Mathsci (talk · contribs), broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia. You may appeal this ban at AE or to the arbitration committee at WP:A/R/CA. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom

I have no idea why you felt the need to mention me in your filing. I have no interest and my only involvement was trying to stop an editor I considered in good standing, ie you, from self-destructing. Frankly I wish I hadn't. Wee Curry Monster talk :01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Since Wee Curry reverted my answer from his talk page without responding, I will repost it here:

• I'm not allowed to comment on a certain individual outside of the an ArbCom forum, but to narrowly address your concern without commenting on that individual, I felt my evidence was compelling and deserved consideration. When you hat someone's evidence in an administration forum, the person, such as I, may feel you have deprived them of their right to give their side in a matter. So, I hope you understand my frustration. It took a lot of time to put those diffs together, and I felt I made my case. If you didn't agree, why didn't you say so in a comment instead of hiding my evidence behind a hatting template? Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction. I tried to respond but you pasting your comments here resulted in an edit conflict.

I gave a statement why I hatted that comment, which also suggested if you disagreed you were welcome to undo it. It was clear that Mathsci took the suggestions to drop it, I suggested you did the same. I don't think you're doing yourself any favours here and that is simple, frank, honest advice. I really would drop it, if I were you. Similarly no you didn't make a case, you come across as pursuing a vendetta against Mathsci and i am only telling you an honest opinion. Please, i have no desire for furtger involvement. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WCM, why would I agree with someone hatting my evidence? I can't comment on the rest that you say. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

There is a report at WP:AE concerning you, because you have violated the interaction ban above. That interaction ban prohibits you from discussing me anywhere on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

Have to say that I took a shining to the quotes you have at the top of this page a little while ago and have since modeled my own talk page on that a bit. Granted, the quotes I added are not quite as obscure or provocative as yours, but I think they are good marks of my personality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are good quotes. The first one reminds me of a similar thought I read somewhere, something along the lines of, "[Such-and-such political group] proclaims their belief in freedom of ideas, but is offended to learn that some people exercise their right to have different ideas than they do." Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the quote on my page is from a Dilbert comic strip. :D --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Carlson's patrol

Some bright spark during a discussion at T:MP on what to do for the TFA on November 6 had the idea of running Carlson's patrol, as it would mark the 70th anniversary of the start of the patrol, and be a politically neutral US-related article for presidential election day. I have nominated it at WP:TFAR and if you have any views for or against, please express them there. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Olympics - Technologies in Track Cycling

Cla68, you may remember briefly commenting on this article back in September. I notice you seem to be the most experienced editor who posted there, so you may be able to recommended the best course of action, if any remain.

The article has since been through extensive discussion, RFC, and a DRN with considerable acrimony and polarisation amongst in the process. The DRN was closed prematurely with a somewhat skewed version in my opinion. However, it was still supposed to be subject to further minor editing further to subsequent discussion, but one editor seems intent on removing it. I am personally reluctant to throw it back to the DRN volunteer, since I've noticed that one person pushing all the dispute policy options isn't popular, although I have suggested another editor who is mostly in agreement with me may wish to do so.

Is mediation the last port of call? It seems rather pointless in view of this latest 'discussion'. In fact several mostly uninvolved editors are now gathering for the kill. This would be a shame for the article, compromised though it is. I also think that removal vindicates the tactics used by more involved editors which is far more damaging.

What is the situation if a controversial article attracts a lot of opposition due to bias despite little good reason to remove or compromise it. Are Wikipedeans supposed to be mostly immune from this disease so the majority are always right, or do we live in the real world? How could a subject such as global warming be 'agreed upon' though a democratic process rather than the science for example? Surely there must be some eventual board who takes a responsible position and locks it --Andromedean (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, before you responsd to the above, which contains wild and baseless accusations which are without foundation, consider the principles of Wikipedia being primarily based on good faith. The above comments by Andromedean show a large amount of bad faith and there are numerous instances throughout the whole discussion and still continuing now which demonstrate further the bad faith being employed by Andromedean. Andromedeanis also shopping to try and stack the discussion with those they think will be supportive or at least sympathetic. Sport and politics (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

USS San Diego

Seeing as you're one of the main contributors to USS San Diego (LPD-22), I wanted to ask you if we should make note on the article that ESPN College Gameday will be live on the San Diego next week?--Daytona 500 14:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to me. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork discussion

Given that the one-way ban is still in effect I think you should self-revert your recent comment to stave off any potential concerns. Personally, I am trying to avoid any unnecessary sidebar discussions about this matter because it isn't worth creating the additional firestorm.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We're supposed to be allowed to conduct dispute resolution with each other, but the way a few admins have been acting in relation to this situation, it might be better to be overly strict about it. Cla68 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Request regarding further appeals

While I think more requests regarding this restriction will just generate more futile drama, I know it is your decision about whether to raise legitimate concerns about your own sanction. However, I would ask that you try to keep me out of any discussions about these restrictions by restricting it specifically to your restriction. I am really tired of dealing with this matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Cla68 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of appeals, is there a way for me to get back on WO? I would try not to get into any non-Wikipedia discussions and avoid any prolonged arguments if that would help.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Have some schwag

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation! --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

GAN

You may not have noticed, but I've started the review at Talk:Lionel_Gilbert/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request

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

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

Thanks, -SightWatcher (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE

A request for enforcement concerning you has been filed at WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I keep my word, so here you go. Just a brief 24 hour block to get you off this situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect, prepare to defend yourself at ArbCom, because as soon as I'm unblocked that is where I will be heading to request a review of your actions. Also, get your defense ready to explain why you have made the decisions you have made over the past year or so which has created this situation. You are supposed to helping build an encyclopedia, not getting in the way. You are getting in the way. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would unblock, thanks to the total lack of consensus, but doing so is apparently not allowed without "the written authorization of the Committee, or ... following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)." Sigh. This is why I stay away from AE. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Cla: I have no problem unblocking you as long as you promise to restrain yourself from further unnecessary comments about Mathsci during the AE thread and related discussions – i.e., any comment that is not strictly focussed on your defense of your own actions and the merits of the case about you. I agree that normally a user has a right to respond to somebody who brings an action against them, but there is a difference in the case of interaction ban complaints. Scenario: (1) A is interaction-banned from B. (2) A violates the interaction ban. (3) B complains against A's violation. (4) A, citing his right of response, now acts as if he was free to comment on B any way he likes during the discussion of the complaint. Result: B has effectively put the interaction ban out of force. In this situation, it was not Mathsci who first chose to interact, it was you (by making comments about him at the Arbcom page that were not necessitated by the substance of the case as relating to you). In this situation, you remain obliged to respect the interaction ban even during the ensuing procedures, to the extent possible.

The ed, I don't consider this an Arbcom "enforcement" block in the strict sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect, I don't think you have a leg to stand on with your rationale for this block. I'm allowed full leeway to defend or explain myself in dispute resolution, with no condition other than avoiding personal attacks or BLP or the other usual rules. You're deeply involved in this situation, and I think it's clouding your judgement because you evidently took a position on it long ago and have, as a result, created a lot of trouble for a number of content-creating editors. So, get your diffs and reasoning ready, because we're headed for an ArbCom request. Cla68 (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As the AE request thread has been brought to a quick close, I am lifting this block as (hopefully) no longer necessary. I trust you will now take notice of the reminder stated in the conclusion [8], which, as you will notice, is based not just on my own take on the situation but also that of several other admins, including ErrantX, Heimstern and Akhilleus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect, first you block me so I can't give my side in the AE request, then you quickly close it before I can respond to any of the comments made while I was blocked. You have got to be kidding me. After I file the ArbCom case request, hopefully later today, I hope you will be able to explain why you have done what you have done, without simply telling ArbCom to "F-off" like you did last time. An extremely intelligent defense, if I say so myself, and one that reflects very well on you. Actually, I hope you again try to use that defense, because I think it illustrates very well your approach to this entire situation. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think it would be a very bad idea to submit such request. Yes, this is a common practice to wait 24 hours before closing an AE request. However, in this case admin(s) will argue that they closed the case quickly because (a) the matter is already under direct consideration by Arbcom; and (b) they closed it quickly per consensus among admins to minimize disruption of precisely the type you are going to create by submitting this complaint. This is all so petty. No reason for new case. But that's your decision. My very best wishes (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC) But if you talk about this, any conflicts with banned users will not be taken by arbcom simply because these users are already banned. The conflic is between you and Matschi. If you want that conflict to be taken by arbcom, then welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sir/Maam, if you could see the evidence that I'm finding, I think you would agree that a case is definitely warranted here. If I could, I would compile it all on a page in my userspace so that all interested parties could see it and participate with building it if they wanted to, because this isn't between me and Future Perfect at Sunrise, this is between he and the WP community. However, the evidence directly touches on an item that I'm not allowed to comment on on-wiki at the moment, except on ArbCom pages like AE, so, unfortunately, the first time you see my case will be when I post it to RfAR. Cla68 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I can see. Well, if you wanted to bring a case about an abusive administrator, you should not bring anything about Mathsci, should not emphasize your own block, and most important, should not remove evidence about other users. However, I would rather not tell anything specific about this administrator, given his continuing participation on AE and the fact that I continue editing in these areas. My personal view is that he should simply stop his participation in enforcement of discretionary sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I recently reviewed the AE report about you, and I agree arbitration would be warranted, if only because when the report was closed it was with the expectation that the matter would be taken there. Is your plan to make the request before or after Christmas? I ask because when you make the request I might decide to comment in it, but my internet access will become more spotty as the holiday approaches. Another risk is that the arbitrators will view the request as stale if it's delayed too long. --Mors Martell (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if I can get three or four hours of uninterrupted time, I hope to get it done today or tomorrow. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Unintentional revert

Hi Cla! I seem to have inadvertently reverted one of your edits here. I can only explain this with fat fingers on the track pad. Sorry. The ed17 had already fixed it when I noticed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all Stephan. I appreciate the note. Cla68 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Treats for your article work

'tis the season

see also Otello or acting on evidence, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerking

I am not currently clerking the Race and intelligence amendment request. My comment is in the section below. NW (Talk) 03:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugle interview

Hi Cla. The Bugle runs a semi-regular interview series where we ask various editors to discuss a particular topic. Our next interview aims to bring together editors working in areas of military history that are perhaps under-represented in the English Wikipedia, for instance Japanese history. Would you mind adding your views to the questions here? Our goal is to despatch this edition prior to Christmas, so if you can respond in the next two weeks, that'd be great. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I edit Wikipedia while i'm at work! But, then again, i'm allowed to, so... Silverseren^C 04:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You are one of the few, I believe. I guess it depends on how much a person spends on it. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tetsuya takeda.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tetsuya takeda.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Dear Cla68, Thanks for you advice at my appeal. I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that I understand and appreciate it, but will not be following it for the reasons I gave in my closing statement. As others have pointed out, I don't believe I ever violated the editorial policies of WP, i.e., I believe that the ban was unjustified. I'm not ready, if you will, to "make peace with the establishment" (though you may counter that I also don't have a very high tolerance for ambiguity! ;-) ). My appeal was intended to offer an occasion for ArbCom to reflect on the wisdom of the ban, not merely a petition for me, personally, to be allowed to get back to work. My interest in WP is increasingly impersonal, even "academic". I just feel a responsibility to put my editing where my mouth is. These days, I am developing some criticisms of the 9/11 articles for publication elsewhere, and I would normally say that the right way to express that criticism is to try to improve the articles first. That avenue of critique is not open to me, however. In any case, thanks for your advice. Happy editing, and see you next time.--Thomas B (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, receiving unfair sanctions is a rite of passage for many non-admin, content-oriented editors in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō

This is a note to let the main editors of Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 27, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 27, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Hōshō was the world's first commissioned ship to be designed and built as an aircraft carrier, and the first aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). Commissioned in 1922, the ship was used for testing aircraft and equipment, and to evaluate operational methods and tactics. She provided valuable lessons and experience for the IJN in early carrier air operations. Hōshō and her aircraft participated in the Shanghai Incident in 1932 and in the opening stages of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937. During those two conflicts, her aircraft supported Imperial Japanese Army ground operations and engaged in combat with aircraft of the Nationalist Chinese Air Force. The small size of the ship and her assigned airgroups (usually around 15 aircraft) limited the effectiveness of her contributions. As a result, the carrier was placed in reserve after her return to Japan from China and she became a training carrier in 1939. During World War II, Hōshō participated in the Battle of Midway in June 1942 in a secondary role. After the battle, the carrier resumed her training role for the duration of the conflict and survived the war with only minor damage. She was used as a repatriation transport after the war and was scrapped in 1946. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom case request

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

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

Thanks,

Arbitration case request concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise

Hi Cla68. As a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to decline the Arbitration concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise, I have delisted the case request. NW (Talk) 18:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Cla! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What he said. :) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga

Hello.

I recently uploaded an image on to wikipedia commons that had been in the scrap book of an American aviator. I was wondering if you might look at this image:

I was thinking it was an image of an A6M Zero fighter launching from the deck of the Kaga. I had never seen the image before. As I saw you did a fair amount of editing on the Kaga page I thought you might have an interest and would be able to offer an opinion as to what it is we are looking at. Thanks for your consideration. Gunbirddriver (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am not even sure if that image has been commonly viewed or not. It seems familiar, but I'm not sure. Gunbirddriver (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, but it looks like there is a bomb underneath. Was that common for Zeros? I'm wondering if it isn't an Aichi D3A. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Zeke with detachable auxiliary fuel tank. Kablammo (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, or there's that. Good call. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Cl, here is the first upload, before the legend was cropped off. Kablammo (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow, there are a number of people interested in my mystery. That's great! I did track down another version of the photo, which was added into wicki commons a couple of years back. The editor had listed it as coming from a book in Japan on Japanese aces of WWII. The photo appears to be more cut down and it has been reversed, apparently by the editor after it had been added. Here is the photo:

日本のエースの本からのものであるイメージ。(Image that is from a book on Japanese aces)

It was added by a Japanese editor named Soica2001. I have left a message on his wikimedia talk page asking if he can add any information. It would seem the two images are from the same negative, but clearly the prints used to add them to the commons were thousands of miles and many years apart. The recent image above is from a photo CDR William Balden found on the Marianas in 1944 and added to his scrap book. It recently was added to a public file (Nav.source or something I believe). Whereas Soica2001's image came from a book in Japan. Balden's image (uncropped) does have Japanese writing on it, so if we could get Soica2001 or someone else fluent in Japanese to look at it we might be able to solve the mystery. Thanks for your consideration. Gunbirddriver (talk)07:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunbirddriver2 (talk • contribs)

Could it be the Soryu?Gunbirddriver2 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not unless the image is reversed. Akagi and Hiryu were the only carriers with port-side islands. Kablammo (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but the first upload of the lower image, the one from Japan loaded by Soica2001 was aligned as the one above, and he subsequently reversed it, I think because he realized just what you have pointed out, that if it was an image of a plane launching from the Akagi then the island had to be on the opposite side, so he assumed the image had been reversed inadvertantly before, and he reversed it himself. But then he is taking someone's word that the image represents what it claimed to represent, a Japanese ace by the name of Lt Saburo Shindo launching from the Akagi in the second wave of the Pearl Harbor attack, but I do not believe that is correct.

Kablammo, do you believe as I do that both images are prints from the same negative? Thanks for your help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an image from the Akagi on that same day for comparison: Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

真珠湾攻撃に対する報復を起動赤城。(Akagi launching second strike against Pearl Harbor)

There are other versions on Commons, under several categories; one contains a translation of the text under the photo, but does not identify the CV. I did not note that link when I saw it but will look for it later. I don't know how to distinguish between Kaga and Akagi by their islands. The rotating props on the images look look different but otherwise the images seem to be the same. Kablammo (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This upload of the first image of this section translates the accompanying text as:

"Subtitles "出撃に向ふ航空母艦上の海鷲" (A naval aircraft making a sortie from an Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carrier) and "海軍省" (Ministry of the Navy of Japan) cropped.

Kablammo (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the images at this site, It seems to resemble Soryu the most, although this could also be possible. Kablammo (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the translation, and for reviewing the images. I was hoping the Japanese captions might have been a little more specific, but it was good to know what they say. I have tried to communicate with the Japanese editor that uploaded the photo, and another Japanese editor that has worked on their carrier sections, but no word back from them as yet. Granted, my google translation might have been a bit rough. Anyway, thanks for the help! Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to note a recent upload by the US Navy Department Library to Facebook of this image: [9] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So there it is, again.

Navy Department Library "After looking at available photographs of Japanese aircraft carriers, we believe this to be the Kaga."

Hmmm. I brought this up over at Combined Fleet and it was pointed out that the photo had appeared in a Japanese book, a volume that was part of a series on Japanese warships of the second world war (Maru Special #6: Japanese Naval Vessels Aircraft Carriers Shokaku & Zuikaku at p6). There it had been identified as the Shokaku at Coral Sea. The commentor went on to point out that the radar array looked correct for Shokaku, so I identified the photo that way, but I believe there still is room for considering other possibilities. In addition, I think the story of the photograph itself and the naval aviator who found it is interesting. Thanks Ed17, and thanks Cla68. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The island does resemble this image (also linked above), and Shokaku's island was to starboard. Kablammo (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Goodness, man, archive your talk page! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I will be updating the Patrick M. Byrne article and would like your support

His article seems famous on Wikipedia and a high point of controversy, I would like your support, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhalluka (talk • contribs) 09:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A word of caution

That revert was particularly unhelpful and improper. If you have issues with an enforcement annotation, raise the issue at AE or directly with the committee – reverting it yourself with a pointy edit summary is stoking drama for all the wrong reasons. You shouldn't have done that; but more importantly, you really shouldn't do it again. — Coren ^(talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Most people think that shadows follow, precede, or surround beings or objects. The truth is that they also surround words, ideas, desires, deeds, impulses and memories." - Elie Wiesel. Cla68 (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

... I don't get the reference, Sorry. — Coren ^(talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Coren, our words, ideas, desires, deeds, impulses, and memories don't exist independently of our surroundings. They cast an effect, a "shadow", on our surroundings and environment. So, the actions of editors in Wikipedia ripple throughout the entity of WP, effecting the way that "light" strikes the rest of us. Coren, when I was student, if I didn't understand something, I at least attempted to give an answer. Giving an "I give up", sounds flippant, arch, and as if you could care less. One of the reasons I've cleared my watchlist and have decided to no longer help fight article deterioration, or even vandalism, is because it seems like you and your fellow arbitrators could care less. Please prove me wrong. Cla68 (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Japanese source for carrier information

I'm starting work on some of the more obscure Japanese carriers, like Template:Sclass-, and I've seen references to Maru Special No. 38 on Japanese aircraft carriers. Apparently it's the second volume to focus on their carriers and I'm wondering if you've got access to a copy as it has some info that isn't available in any of my English-language sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You could ask at the J-aircraft or at Tully's Port if any of the regulars there have that issue and are willing and able to scan the article you need and send it to you. I could also probably order it online here in Japan, if it's still available, and send it to you. It might take awhile. The article will be in Japanese and my language ability isn't good enough to be able to read much of it. Cla68 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

More nonsense

[10]

Your question about tourism in Gibraltar

I moved your question to Prioryman to the talk page of the RfA. The "questions for the candidate" section of the RfA is (unsurprisingly) for questions for the candidate. Prioryman is not currently an RfA candidate, interesting though such a prospect might be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that would be quite a circus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

David Wants to Fly

Hi Cla68, Sometime ago you had expressed some concern on the talk page of this article regarding the excessive length of the synopsis of this film. I have today viewed the film and taken copious notes with time notations. On that basis I have revised and simplified the synopsis and its now down to 725 words instead of 925 words (WP:PLOT recommends 400-700 words). If you have a few minutes sometime could you look at it and give me some feedback? I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Looks good to me. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Pine^✉ 20:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

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

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

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

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

Talk page access revoked. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

I agree Kevin. Thank you. What would you consider to be a thoughtful approach- a warning? Since I don't know what happened or what was considered outing I can't say much about that, but I think a warning would have been in line.(olive (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC))

The individual who was "outed" has publicly connected his Wikipedia account and his real-name. Hopefully, the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee will resolve this situation and trout the two above admins. Ripberger (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Cla68 didn't 'out' Russavia, he asked Sue to comment on a blog post about him. Furthermore, the blog post didn't 'out' Russavia either, since Russavia self-identified in at leas two Wikipedia mailing lists and elsewhere on the internet. Beeblebrox simply doesn't know what he is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.251.11 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Most problematic is this was done on the presumption that it was "deliberate" outing to mention the various instances where the editor identified himself as a Wikipedia editor when using his real name. It seems likely that Cla simply presumed "violating privacy" means telling people things a person tries to keep private, rather than telling people things a person has no problem telling random strangers on the Internet.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure a more reasonable solution to this could be worked out. For all the reasons stated above, this block seems inappropriate. Everyking (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, all.(olive (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC))

• I am willing to consider the possibility that it was not as malicious as it looked, but it was undeniably outing, and pointing out who was outed yet again here is decidedly unhelpful.

• What you all seem to have missed is that the outing policy is very clear that for any user who has not publicly stated on Wikipedia what their real name (or have done so but later had it removed) any attempt to reveal their personal information is in fact outing. This is not my opinion, it is exactly what the policy says, should you care to read it. If you don't like that policy, feel free to try and change it, but don't blame us for doing exactly what the community has asked admins to do in such situations.

• I can also assure you that the other functionaries, including the arbs, are perfectly aware of the block and the exact circumstances surrounding it. The revocation of talk page priveleges was only done after Cla continued to post the same information after already being blocked for it, leaving little choice. If Cla is able to assure BASC that this will never happen again I am sure they would unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I saw the original posting on Sue Gardner's talk page and my recollection is that Cla68 linked to a blog post on Wikipediocracy which disclosed an editor's real name but Cla68 did not "out" the editor in that post although they clearly did in their unblock requests. An immediate indef block seems overly harsh when viewed in context of Cla68's long contribution history. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Cla68 has adopted an extreme battleground position relative to Russavia. Whether or not you think Russavia deserved to be outed so that he could be held responsible for the affronts listed at Wikipediocracy, we at Wikipedia are not here to drag our editors through the mud and ruin them in real life. Cla68 went wa-a-ay overboard in his pursuit of Russavia, and in his unblock request he showed no remorse. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I am familiar with "extreme battleground positions" and Russavia, but I made no comment about anyone "deserving" to be outed. I only pointed out that the punishment seems inappropriate for the original offence. Cla68's actual outing violations came in the unblock requests for the indef block. I do not know if they would have made the same statements if the block were shorter or if they had only received a warning. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the WP:Harassment talkpage [11]. Ripberger (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• You are right Beebs, the letter of the policy is completely idiotic to suggest it is a violation of privacy to note publicly here the connection between the account name and real name of an individual who has willingly disclosed the same connection publicly elsewhere. That is indeed a problem with the policy, but then Wikipedia is not supposed to be about rules so "because the policy said so" is not the best reason. Unfortunately, our policy doesn't really allow for a middle-ground on this matter and we end up having to engage in some drama-laden bitchfest to figure out where the middle-ground lies on a case-by-case basis.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There actually is a policy on that! [12] Ripberger (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) So where can I read his unblock request?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Those have been oversighted. You can't read them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So the offending material couldn't be redacted and the rest of his request left intact? That's just awesome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have sent an email to the functionaries list requesting the restoration of a redacted version of Cla68's unblock request. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Your email hasn't made it to the list yet (non-subscriber emails are moderated, and only one or two people who might not be online right now handle the moderation), but his unblock request was (with problematic content redacted): "[person] has publicly self-identified as [link to off-site page outing person|real name]. On a further note, Beeblebrox did not give me any detail on where the outing occurred. I had to look at [second off-site thread outing person] to find out why, because I knew that [person]'s real name ([real name]) was publicly acknowledged and couldn't figure out what Beeblebrox was going on about." As you can see, there's not much left to the request once you take out the content outing another user, and certainly not enough to allow another admin to adequately review an unblock request; given that, there wasn't much reason to leave a basically-empty unblock request active. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Fluffernutter. Keeping details of situations like this visible is important - even when necessary redaction reduces them to a skeleton, as above - to allow editors to get the full picture, and avoid potential accusations of Kafkaesque administration. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. Would you mind wrapping that quote in a {{tq}} to make it stand out a bit? I have put a copy of it at the top of this section. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, this is why I didn't want to involve myself in this situation. What Cla68 did in his unblock requests was a violation of WP:OUTING. What they did on Sue's talk page was not so clearly a violation. Violations of WP:OUTING are grounds for an immediate block. Grounds for a block does not mean that you indef a long-term contributor without discussion. Especially when the incident was arguably not a violation. You can claim that you are "ignoring all rules", but it would have been sensible to approach Cla68 and let them know that you thought it was a violation rather than going directly to the most extreme solution available to you. I'm not making excuses for Cla68, but I think this situation could have easily been avoided altogether. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

IAR generally refers to content not people. Content can't explain or apologize or try to do better next time. Either there was outing or there wasn't. You can't attempt to out information that is public. I don't know what has been oversighted, but I would agree with Delicious Carbuncle that there are steps one can take to deal with difficult situations. Discussion, and warnings are first steps in dealing with editors, while skipping the first steps to jump to the most extreme one appears to be hasty, and bypasses the route that results in learning and in holding on to experienced editors.(olive (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC))

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

Er, I'm going to have to disagree there. The unblock request (original version) repeatedly re-outed the person who had been outed, and when he was told to not use private information in unblock requests, Cla followed that up with re-re-outing the person in his response to that warning. The redacted version of the unblock request amounts to "I wasn't told which specific page I outed someone on, so unblock me", which is pretty much unrelated to whether he intends to continue outing people or not, which is the information we need to know to evaluate whether the block is still necessary. Right now all available evidence, up to and including his unblock request and responses here before his talk page access was removed, points to "no, he does not understand how his behavior was unacceptable, and yes, he intends to continue that behavior if unblocked". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

But it doesn't look like there are any secrets left (or are there?). If everyone else feels they can discuss the outed material here then isn't this just more drama for no reason at all? I'm not arguing against the original block or Someguy's talk page access revocation. They both seem fine. But, I don't see much point in a continued block (unless there was more outing than what is being disclosed above). --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It was definitely neglectful of the blocking admin to not inform Cla68 of where the violation occurred. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

RegentsPark, you'll notice that no one in this thread has said or linked to the outed person's personal information. Because that's against policy, as discussed heavily above. So yes, I'd say there are "secrets" left, and they will be staying that way, as our policy says they must. If and when Cla68 comprehends that his behavior was contrary to policy, he can submit an unblock request to WP:UTRS or Arbcom and explain that he doesn't intend to continue with it, and I imagine an unblock would be swift at that point; however, unblocking on the basis of "people know an outing occurred and someone was blocked for it, so let's unblock him since people know he's blocked for it" doesn't make a ton of sense. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my reasoning. Rather, if the outed information, after being redacted, is being freely discussed here, then there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing the block because other editors don't see the need for keeping the information secret. However, if there is still something that cla68 disclosed but is not being freely discussed, then it is a different matter. --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I agree that it may not be hard to figure out the identity, but that doesn't mean we should ignore our own rules against posting such information on-Wiki. Nobody thinks it is hard to find an illegal song on the internet, that doesn't mean we should feel free to link it. I'm puzzled at a theme suggesting the block was premature and should have been discussed first. Blocks are reversible. Outing information, not so easy. Given the repeat of the posting after being blocked, the decision to block talk page access was not only valid, but no other option makes sense. We can now have a measured discussion, and if the result is that he should be unblocked, then he can be unblocked. I do understand why he wanted to share some information with Sue Gardner. I also think he is bright enough to figure out how to do it privately.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Russavia self-identified. Is that so? An indef ban is not the same as a block, and perhaps requires some warning and discussion. I don't see the point in by passing those steps when the ultimate ban is an outcome. We are here to hold on to editors to educate and work with them, or us- they are us in a collaborataive project. There is enough contention in this thread alone to question what happened here. If there is a question, what is the concern with revisiting the editor in a mature way and opening a discussion that does not preclude guilt which might anger or upset any of us.(olive (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC))

Good block. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Cla68's gross misconduct here is more than ironic, given his vehemence in the TimidGuy appeal case that WillBeback be banned for identifying to Jimbo TimidGuy's employer, something TimidGuy had previously posted himself, but had removed. And at least one of Cla68's defenders is in the identical boat of having previously posted their employer but having had it redacted, and like Cla68 clamored for a ban against WillBeback, making the defense puzzling at best. No admin or arb should be willing to lift Cla68's ban unless they are prepared to do the same simultaneously with respect to WillBeback.Fladrif (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You're grossly mischaracterizing the behavior for which WillBeback was banned. That somewhat undermines the equivalency argument. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

He self-identified off-wiki several times, including on Wikimedia mailing lists that are public. More importantly, he has stated on-wiki that he lives in Perth, Australia, and owns a perfume business. In two separate articles that I know about Russavia had added links to that business as references. They were removed a year ago, several years after they had been added, but it was by another editor with the stated reason for removal being that the links had gone dead and were probably not reliable in the first place. Anyone looking at the whois details for those links would have his name.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Given the above, and the fact that Cla68 is clearly a far more valuable editor to enwiki than Russavia (Commons issues, currently blocked) he should just post another unblock request. I know what I'd do with it. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

  Relative usefulness of editors is not a factor in wp:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information. ϢereSpielChequers 21:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whether privacy has actually been violated, on the other hand, is a factor. I noted above that the editor who was supposedly outed had disclosed on-wiki that he owned a perfume business and linked to it in a couple of articles. Well, the disclosure happened in a deletion discussion regarding one of those articles where there were only two edits by that editor to the article, with one being to initiate the deletion discussion and the other being to add the reference. The editor outed himself a long time ago by making a promotional edit to an article where his conflict of interest would be known.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• A sentiment I would completely agree with if it were a simple case of outing information which was not available elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Currently the policy seems clear that self disclosure can only be argued if it is on Wikipedia. I've slipped up on mailing lists and I'm sure I'm not the only one, but as you can't retract a mailing list post it makes sense to treat them differently to an unredacted post on one's userpage. As for Whois info and so forth - well the policy seems clear to me "If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority." My take on that is that if you can join up the dots via research such as whois then there is a way to deal with COI violations without outing people here or on badsites. So I'd hope that no-one would unblock Cla68 unless we at least had an assurance that if in future he thought it necessary to link someone to their offwiki persona he would email Arbcom rather than out someone on wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 21:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• AFAIK (and per TDA above) much of that information (if not all of it) is available on-wiki. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• The disclosure was never removed and the links were removed by another editor years later for being unreliable sources that were also dead links. All of that information is still publicly available. We have no reason to believe Cla68 was aware that outing was even an issue. The blog post actually made the case that it was not outing before really detailing anything else so even if you think the blog post itself was outing I don't see why we should assume that Cla68 was posting the link with any intention of outing anyone. He had every reason to believe that it was not outing given the various voluntary disclosures noted in the blog post.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, come off it. Wikipediocracy outed an editor, Cla68 advertised that outing on Wikipedia, got blocked and outed the editor again in his unblock request. He knows perfectly well not to do that kind of thing once, let alone repeat it. The right thing to do would have been to admit the error, apologise and promise never to do it again, but Cla68 doesn't seem to do apologies. Quite simply, he was trolling - not for the first time - and got smacked hard down for it. Good riddance, frankly. The fewer Wikipediocracy users we have here, the better. Prioryman (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to me that Cla's intent by linking to the blog post on-wiki was to be malicious toward the editor in question. So, we can argue whether this technically does or does not fit into the definition of outing, but if the intent was to have a negative effect on a Wikipedia editor, I think that says more than enough. Silverseren^C 22:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hans Adler has posted a comment elsewhere which I think is worth highlighting: "It's not directly about harm, it's about privacy invasion. There is a huge difference between someone handing out the occasional detail about their personal life in on-wiki conversations and mailing list posts on one hand, and on the other hand a big blog post that is all about "LOOK HERE EVERYONE! USER X IS REALLY Y Z FROM Q! READ ON FOR ALL OF X'S ACCOUNTS THAT I COULD FIND AND GOSSIP ABOUT HIS WORK!" That blog post is an off-site attack page. We don't have to discuss whether it can be harmful if harm is very obviously the intent. And once a person has been targeted in this way one really has to be careful about repeating any of the information on-wiki, even if one considers it well known from previous interactions." Prioryman (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• The blog post made mention of one of the editor's comments towards a female editor regarding explicit imagery on Wikipedia and presented this as a counter-point to Sue Gardener's claims regarding reasons for the gender gap. Cla68 left a comment on the blog post that he was posting it to her page to get a comment and that's what he did.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm not buying that. Cla68 could just as easily have emailed his question to Sue and protected the editor's privacy. Instead he posted it publicly and highlighted the malicious blog posting for all to see (I note that Sue has 130 talk page watchers). Cla67 wasn't simply seeking to get Sue's views, he was publicly exposing the editor concerned. I've no doubt that was quite deliberate. Prioryman (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Au contraire. [13]Fladrif (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think that outing should merit a block then WT Outing is thataway. Current policy is that it does unless the outing was unintentional and non-malicious. Considering the involvement of a certain off wiki site I'm not convinced that this was either..... ϢereSpielChequers 02:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

But that's not the question. The question is: do Cla68's actions constitute outing? At the very least, it's questionable, and I don't believe it's been established. Everyking (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Best way to establish that, right now, is to check with the oversight team. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

But don't we know the facts already? Everyking (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The outing policy is quite clear: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. There is no pretence in the blog post that Cla68 linked to that any of the personal information in question came from Wikipedia - it is scraped from various places around the Web. Cla68 has publicly posted the text of an unblock request that he has sent to Arbcom, which effectively makes the same point, as none of the links he has cited in evidence of his position comes from Wikipedia. While Cla68 didn't write the blog post in question (I assume), his act of posting a link to it also clearly constitutes an act of harassment; WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment says: Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia. Honestly, none of this is rocket science. It's all very well-understood wikipolicy going back years, with plenty of precedent in how it is applied. The fact that Cla68 is a long-established contributor actually makes his action more egregious, as he knows perfectly well that this kind of outing is strictly prohibited and I've not seen even the slightest expression of regret from him. Prioryman (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

My point was that if one allows that it was not outing it is all the same reasonable to say it shouldn't have been posted publicly on-wiki, but that this in itself is not worthy of an indefinite block.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 cannot be heard to credibly claim that this was not outing, having vigorously argued exactly the opposite in far less serious, yet otherwise comparable circumstances, against WillBeback in the TimidGuy appeal ArbCom. At least Will's alleged outing violation (again, involving information TimidGuy posted to on-Wiki but which he had redacted, plus off-Wiki postings}, was only in private correspondence to Jimbo, not in a post to a generally-available Wikipedia talk or userpage. What's sauce for the goose....etc.Fladrif (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked over the case and I don't see how that's an accurate interpretation. Cla68 did not really discuss outing issues, but seemed to be making a general point that WillBeback conducted investigations into the personal lives of other editors to win content disputes and that one instance of this led to TimidGuy's block. That is markedly different from what we are discussing here. Cla68 posted a link to a blog post someone else wrote where the identification was based on public information to get a comment from someone else named in the post.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• WAIT! Why does Sue have so few talk page watchers?!? Should we take this discussion over to her talk page in order to help her out a bit? Girlpower and all that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "Girlpower"? Really? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I've seen the phrase used around here a few times. (Well, not here specifically ;)) Always wondered a bit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't know if you want to refactor your comment or not, but it comes across as sexist (at least to me). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Indeed. And patronizing - Alison ^❤ 08:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Only when used by a male editor? Or all the time? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
            • I think you know exactly what you are saying and why it's wrong. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:28, 2 March 2013‎ (UTC)
              • I know exactly what I said and exactly what I meant by it. What you're trying to read into it is your problem. If my humour is the biggest "wrong" you can find in the world today, you live in a very happy little world and I am delighted for you. (Patronising? Yes. Deserved? Yes.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
                • It's far from the biggest wrong; I don't know what gave you that impression. In any case, I'm also delighted that you can revel and defend a statement that was either intended as sexist or is easily read as such. Good day, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Until he understands our outing policy and agrees to abide by it, we have no choice. The ball's in Cla68's court. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I would look additionally for a clear acknowledgement that he was wrong to act as he did. So far his responses, both on this page and in his email to Arbcom, have amounted to "I did nothing wrong because you can find this personal information on these off-wiki pages", which shows that he simply doesn't get it. (Actually I think he does get it but is just being self-righteous.) Prioryman (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering this is a controversial matter, as illustrated by the length and contentiousness of this discussion, I think it would be best to unblock Cla68 for the time being and hold a community discussion to decide whether this constitutes outing and what should be done. Everyking (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The block was made by an oversighter and has been appealed to the Arbitration Committee; nobody (or at least anyone who wants to keep their sysop bit) is going to unblock without Arbcom's approval. Prioryman (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC) @ Everyking. The problem with detailed discussion of an outing case is that you can't do it publicly without outing the individual who was allegedly the victim of the alleged outing. That's one of the main reasons why we have an audit committee, if people want to argue with them that this wasn't actually outing then go email them your evidence. But as I see it the controversy isn't really over whether this was outing, the controversy is over some editors wanting an exception to be made to the Outing policy because they consider Cla68 too valuable an editor to be lost. My suggestion to them is to either persuade Cla68 to agree to comply with the rules of this community, or file an RFC calling for vested contributors to be granted immunity from some of the rules that apply to the rest of us. Neither option requires that Cla68 be unblocked. ϢereSpielChequers 15:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I don't think many people (if any) are suggesting we should make exceptions. The main sentiment I see is that people don't view this as an actual violation of the policy. Everyking (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The other problem is that cases like this end up only being able to be discussed on... Wikipediocracy (or WR, if it's up and running this week). A bug for some, a feature for others, perhaps. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

In this case the blog post quite literally argues that this editor's identity is not a secret, so the claim that Cla68 engaged in a "deliberate violation" is weakened considerably on that basis alone. He insists it isn't outing and he has a perfectly reasonable basis for feeling that way so it definitely suggests there was no deliberate outing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Again: oh, come off it. The issue at the heart of WP:OUTING is not and never has been whether an editor's identity is a "secret". I'll point out the relevant bit to you: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." There's absolutely nothing there about information being "secret". Not even Cla68, in his appeals against his block, has argued that the editor in question disclosed their own personal information on Wikipedia. Yes, you could probably find out who most pseudonymous Wikipedians are by trawling Google to find them. But the point of WP:OUTING is to discourage that kind of "opposition research". If a person has chosen to be known by a pseudonym on Wikipedia, that's not an invitation try to find out their identity by trawling through search engines. Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You are presenting the statement about opposition research out of context:

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

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

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

Well, sure. Here on Wikipedia we love to kick people out for all sorts of reasons, good and bad... Everyking (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla is not banned or anything, all they have to do is assure BASC that they now and understand and will respect the outing policy. I haven't seen the unblock request referred to above (where is it?) but apparently they have not yet done that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who has appreciated many of Cla's past contributions, I've been watching all this unfold. (the discussion here, I'm not familiar with the details which brought it about). Apparently there were some outing issues, and after 1 unblock request, Cla's talk page ability was revoked. If all this is now in private channels (BASC), and Cla is unable to respond to anything here; I'm curious as to what can be resolved with all this. — Ched :  ?  22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, hopefully it will be seen that this is in serious enough contention that any appeal will be reviewed with that taken into consideration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hopefully it will also be seen that administrative staff on the boxcutter site are now also helpfully offering to "out" (that's their phrasing, not mine) some of the people who've commented in this discussion. Certainly an interesting attempt to provide "chilling effects". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Even if true, how is that relevant to the merits of this block? Everyking (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman is right. While some are arguing that his actions shouldn't be considered outing, they are essentially arguing for a change in policy. That might be warranted, but until such time as the policy is changed, we make decisions on the existing policy. I have seen many people argue the information isn't hard to find, but that's not the test - is the information on Wikipedia, placed there by the subject? I haven't seen any such claim.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Privacy related issues are not an area where we play fast and loose with the rules. A few commenters here aside, that is not what the community wants us to do and it is not what the WMF wants us to do either. I would have made the same block no matter who did the outing and who they outed, this is not about what a productive user Cla is, I frankly don't know anything about their other contribs, which is fine bacause they are not relevant to the reasons for this block. Again, Cla can get unblocked anytime they agree to not out anyone ever again, simple as that. And on that note, I am leaving this discussion as i see no point to continuing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, when someone says on-wiki "I own x business" I consider that as good as self-identifying. That is basically what happened as the editor in question said he owned a perfume business during a discussion about an article and then provided a link to that exact business as a reference on the very same article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

While I'm split on this topic overall, that's ... not exactly cut and dry. It's certainly not like he specifically stated "this is my business" and linked to it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be wisest not to discuss the details lest this discussion itself be considered outing. And I mean that as a friendly warning since I have myself been blocked by an over-zealous admin for outing that wasn't outing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way, if someone's only edit to the article contents was to add a link to a perfume business as a source and that same person has previously said during a discussion of the same article that they own a perfume business, wouldn't you be just a tad curious as to whether the two things were connected? I certainly know I would.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And if a COI issue is observed because of that, then you send an email to the appropriate group (Arbcom or whomever), you do not get involved in attacking the person off-wiki for the COI, nor do you state who you think they are on-wiki. Silverseren^C 04:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver seren, conflict of interest issues are discussed at WP:COIN, where -- you should not be surprised to learn -- editors routinely speculate on the associations and identities of other editors and are not blocked for it. This also happens at WP:SPI, although people tend to be a little more careful about linking editors to off-wiki identities. Devil's Advocate, I think it is reasonable to be curious under the circumstances, so long as you assume good faith about the addition of those links. And also their removal (by Silver seren, as it happens). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion break

• May I suggest that Cla68 post a note stating that he will not discuss editors' real life identities when he knows they don't like it? Whether or not an editor's identity might be known, it is rude to give them uninvited attention, to violate their privacy on Wikipedia, except in the unusual case there might be a legitimate COI that needs to be discussed. I don't think that exception applies to the present matter. With that assurance from Cla68 in place, I think his account should be unblocked. The goal is to help people to comply with the rules, not to punish, especially not to punish excessively. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree with what Jehochman says here. Since Cla68 can not currently edit his own talk page however, I suppose this would have to be done by proxy. Perhaps an email or some other form of communication with one of the editors he trusts and/or communicates with. That person could then copy and paste what it is that Cla68 would like to say. A word of caution: Anyone doing this should take care to post ONLY the core of what Cla68 would say, and should be careful to NOT include any other information such as email headers etc. — Ched :  ?  18:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion and sentiment. It is better not to bring up even RL identities that are known (unless it is absolutely necessary). A simple statement from Cla68 would resolve this adequately. --regentspark (comment) 18:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Why "when he knows they don't like it?" How is what Cla68 knows, or thinks he knows, about an editor's preferences relevant to anything? WP:OUTING says nothing about personal preferences - it focuses on whether personal information has been voluntarily disclosed on-wiki or not. Would it not just be simpler to avoid the subject of editors' real-life identities altogether? Prioryman (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Or alternatively we could just let him edit his own talk page. You'd think we were dealing with Grawp or something here. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I keep telling myself I'm, done here, and I have said this three or four times already, but obviously that is all they need to do. However, they need to do it in an email to BASC, at this time the re-instatement of talk page access is not really on the table until after they do that. The series of events was

1. Cla outs someone.

2. I block them for it.

3. The post an unblock request where they repeat the exact same actions that got them blocked.

4. That unblock request is oversighted and the reviewing admin warns them not to do that again.

5. They do it again anyway.

6. Talk page access revoked

7. Long conversation with all sorts of wild speculation and advocacy on behalf of Cla, apparently nobody registers until just now that all they have to do is say they will abide by the outing policy in the future until someone besides me says so.

And here we are. There is no point to continuing to speculate or argue this, Cla is the only one that can get Cla unblocked, and it would be exceedingly simple for them to do so. This continued discussion really is pointless, it is up to Cla to take action to get unblocked. This isn't government work, we don't have to make it more complicated than it needs to be and it really is as simple as that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be even simpler if you just unlocked the talk page so that their views could be seen in context, as opposed to an appeal to an authority that is not transparent. You've also got to take into account that there are a significant number of editors above who believe that this was not a simple case of OUTING. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Black Kite. We should be trying to end this and here we have a straightforward, non-bureaucratic way forward assuming talk page access is restored. As a matter of curiosity, do all blocks for outing need to be cleared with oversight? --regentspark (comment) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, but I have let the oversighter know as well (who was also the admin who removed talkpage access, not Beeblebrox). Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What should have happened is for Beebs to oversight the original comment and then tell Cla68 that he did this and explain why in sufficiently clear terms with a further request that Cla68 raise any complaints in a way that would not repeat the information. That would have been a reasonable and respectable way to handle the situation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Now that I'm curious enough to read a bit (my first thought was "oversight" or "revdel"), and seeing that Someguy is actually a member of the Oversight team, I look forward to hearing his input. I'm guessing that this was actually "suppressed" (it appears that the term "oversight" is now antiquated). Perhaps m.Oversight policy? — Ched :  ?  19:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In all three suppression actions were taken. One for the original post, two for the unblock requests which were actually even worse than the edit that got them blocked in the first place. Suppression is not actually something we want to do, it's rough on the d-base and just generally isa a tool that is used as little as possible. So in order to prevent more material from needing to be suppressed Cla's talk page access was revoked. I am going to email BASC myself and ask them if there isn't something they can tell us about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on BASC but I have read the emails that the ArbCom appeals list has been getting. Beeblebrox's timeline appears accurate; I'm not really sure there is anything more to say. Beeblebrox did the first suppression and block; Someguy1221 did the suppressions related to the unblock requests. The Audit Submcommittee has not been asked to look into the suppressions to my knowledge (they are on a separate mailing list which I am not on; if they have; it hasn't been reported to the Arbitration Committee as a whole). What is it you guys are looking for? NW (Talk) 19:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but when a prolific and productive editor here gets indeffed for allegedly outing a disruptive editor who is blocked from editing enwiki (and is very controversial elsewhere), when much if not all of that information appears to be available on Wikimedia sites (as pointed out by multiple people above), perhaps we'd like a little bit more than "*shrug* get him to email someone"? Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Beeblebrox was able to do suppression NW? — Ched :  ?  20:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he's an oversighter. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I've been an oversighter since 2010. It is my understanding that AUSC would notify me if one of my suppression actions was being disputed, I have not gotten any such notification. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I didn't realize that. My apologies. — Ched :  ?  20:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

More eyes?

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

I don't think so. Look, I don't even consider myself involved in this situation any more. Cla needs to tel BASC they will abide by WP:OUTING. We don't need a drama fest to accomplish that, Cla just needs to send an email. They don't need to apologize or even say they agree with the policy, just that they will respect it in the future. A community discussion can't bring that about. Please don't make this a bigger deal, it is really a little deal with a simple solution, all it takes is a tiny little statement from Cla. Why they have not provided that yet is not something anyone but Cla can know. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a drama-fest, merely that it may be useful to solicit input from editors and admins who may not have this page watchlisted and who may be unaware of what is a quite tricky issue. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Except, it's not a tricky issue. And your whole attitude that we should give "more valuable" editors extra latitude in violating Wikipedia:Harassment, as long as that harrassment is directed at less-vested contributors, leaves me gobsmacked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free not to put words into my mouth. I was suggesting that it would not be in Wikipedia's interest to lose such a valuable contributor in such circumstances which, whether you like it not, are disputed and if that is to be the case, we need a little more than the "tough" we have been given. It is also not unreasonable to point out the activities of the alleged subject of the harrassment at that point. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think there will be much sympathy for the idea that we have two classes of contributor, "valuable" and "not valuable", and that the first category gets an exemption from conduct policies. Harassment is inexcusable, whoever perpetrates it, and it's frankly dismaying that some otherwise sensible editors seem to be keen to excuse it on the grounds that Cla68 is a valuable contributor / a fellow Wikipediocracy member / the target of the harassment deserved it / there's an R in the month, or whatever the favourite excuse is today. Really, this is quite straightforward: 1. Harassment should never be tolerated. 2. The privacy of every contributor to Wikipedia should be respected. 3. Nobody gets exempted from policies against harassment. Period. Those really aren't complicated principles. Prioryman (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that. You are quite correct in all of those three statements; however they would be relevant to this case only if you believe this is a straightforward case of outing. As I keep pointing out, though, this is disputed. Although having said that, it is not unknown on Wikipedia to look at editors' prior behaviour when deciding on sanctions - it is done regularly at ArbCom, and, indeed, by admins every day. Black Kite (talk)

TenOfAllTrades, I find it hard to believe that you would be "gobsmacked" by the idea that some contributors are more valuable than others. Not all editors are equal. There is a hierarchy here that is obvious to anyone who has spent any amount of time here. And there are editors who seem be afforded special protection because they are "good content contributors". None of this should surprise you in the least. I think the feeling here is that it would be a shame to lose a good editor simply because the blocking admin skipped over discussion and warning for what was not a clear case of outing (from my recollection of the original posting) and went straight to an indef block. I think we are agreed that Cla68 needs to affirm that they will not repeat the action, but it is in WP's best interest to unblock, which may not be the case for most blocks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Cla68. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Ched :  ?  21:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 reply

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

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

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

That's progress. But it is entirely possible to breach our wp:Outing policy without disclosing Russavia's real name, or indeed the real name of any other editor. We've had incidents in the past that involved links to people's phone numbers, or indeed links to people's real names. In the circumstances I would prefer that we have an assurance from Cla68 that whether or not he agrees with wp:Outing, in future he will comply with it. ϢereSpielChequers 22:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that Cla68 has worded his promise in a very lawyerly way. It would not have precluded his posting a link to the off-wiki outing discussion, which was the cause of his block, as he did not "mention Russavia's real name on Wikipedia" in the course of doing so. This is discouraging; it seems to indicate that he still does not think there was anything wrong about linking to off-wiki outing. WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment is very clear that "harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia." It also doesn't amount to a promise that he will abide by WP:OUTING for any editor other than Russavia. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, maybe we're getting somewhere. (thanks WSC). I didn't ask him any 20 questions, but this seems to be a reasonable follow-up, and I'll pass that along. I hate to sound like Arnold, but "I'll be back". — Ched :  ?  22:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Reply to WSC post from Cla68

"You can let them know that I promise not to link to the blog post on Wikipedia either. "

— Ched :  ?  23:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• One additional follow-up, and then perhaps it's better to talk to Cla68 directly least I confuse matters in some fashion. Also from an email and with permission, Cla68 stated:

"By the way, 
I don't think I violated the outing policy.  
And, if allowed to, I will explain why on my talk page without saying or linking to Russavia's real name.
Thanks for your help."

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

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

The better (and more accurate) term would probably be "doxing", since that's what seems to be at the heart of the concern behind the policy. YMMV, of course. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Brad, I think your suggestion is a bit off as more than a few editors contribute under their real name or otherwise freely make their name known. Hopefully, no one is going to suggest Cla68 cannot even mention their real names. The issue here is that it is apparent that Cla68 does not think he outed the editor in question and there is a split on that point. Using someone's real name when the editor has not explicitly stated his or her name on-wiki seems to be what is at issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Please stop lobbying. Cla68 can communicate with the relevant people, and can state unequivocally that he will stop publishing personally identifiable information about other editors. This is very easy for him to do, and has no downside whatsoever. Newyorkbrad, instead of "outing" you can use that term. An alternative, more concise term that would also be accurate is "dox" or "doxing". Jehochman ^Talk 00:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Has he not done so? Everyking (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion he has already done so, and I see no reason why he should not be unblocked. I've a mind to do just that. Blocks are preventative etc and recurrence has been prevented. Kevin (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocks on Wikipedia are intended to prevent disruption and it seems like Cla68 will no longer disrupt Wikipedia (in this way, heh). At a minimum, talk page access should be immediately restored, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Cla68 has posted this reply to Newyorkbrad's message above on wikipediocracy:

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

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

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

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

Ygm

Hello, Cla68. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

In case you were wondering, you should actually have an email from me now—I don't think it went through last night, as I didn't get a oopy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

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

Thank you. More to come. By the way, what's the deal with throwing editors off one's talk page, then showing up to bollocks them when they can't respond? What's up with that? Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. Ripberger (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have trouble parsing the grammar. Who threw whom off and who showed up? It looks like the subject changes mid-sentence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 is talking about the all too familiar situation where an editor is discussed on their talk page, whilst being unable to participate due to being blocked. Kevin (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have guessed so. But then the question is merely rhetorical. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's that one of the editors above most stridently urging that I remain blocked is an editor who in the recent past banned me from his user talk page. I know it's a normal part of Wikipedia culture for people to show up in situations like this to pile-on on editors they have had conflicts with in the past. But, to ban someone from your talk page, then post pejorative things about them on their talk page when they can't respond is really taking it to a new level. Cla68 (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that Cla68 did not agree to not repeat the outing; he has only agreed to avoid two of the simpler ways of doing it. Also note that Cla68 refused to agree to conditions suggested by Newyorkbrad, which would have amounted to a promise to avoid outing people. Cardamon (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Cardamon, why don't you wait for me to post the full account on my side of what happened? I will do so without repeating or linking to Russavia's real name. Cla68 (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you email that to somebody you trust on the Arbitration Committee or Oversight team and get their opinion whether what you want to post will be problematic. A bit of extra caution at this juncture will be worth a lot more than a bit of extra speed. Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman is right, Cla. Andreas JN466 13:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The last thing we want here is you to be re-blocked by an over-enthusiastic admin. Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this a step farther: Cla, if you want to argue that what you did in a specific case wasn't outing, you simply can't do that on public noticeboards, even if you carefully avoid actually saying the name. You can't, because if it turns out you were wrong and misinterpreting the policy, you'll have outed someone again and drawn exponentially more attention to it this time. I understand the impulse to prove that you didn't do anything wrong, but you can't go about it the way you're proposing; you need to either use private discussion venues (i.e. contact Arbcom and debate with them over whether X information is "outing"), or you need to have a completely unrelated-to-any-case discussion, after this matter has cooled down, about what WP:OUTING should say. I frankly think you should not have been unblocked until you understood this, but Kevin has now put you in a very awkward position of telling you it's ok to do something when not only isn't it ok generally, but doing that thing is very likely to get you in more trouble than you were in to begin with. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No, what I have done is taken the view that Cla68 is unlikely to repeat those comments and posts re Russavia. I take no stand on whether Cla68 was right, wrong or whatever. That issue can now be debated in the full light of day. Kevin (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

• As someone who tried to move this forward, I have to say that I also agree with Jehochman and those above as far as speaking privately to NYB, the Arbitration Committee, and/or Oversight team. I can appreciate Kevin's actions, so perhaps "discretion being the better part of valor", "don't cut your nose off to spite your face", etc. etc. It's hard to achieve anything if you can't edit. — Ched :  ?  18:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I find it incredibly ironic that Cla would have the nerve to complain about being kicked when their down considering that they were outing a user who is banned here but who blocked them [14] at Commons last year for harassing users over there in essentially the same fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unless you know what the exact claim specifically concerned I think you should not be raising it. It was short in length so it is highly unlikely that it was in "essentially the same fashion" and was possibly not something that could get a person blocked here. To put it mildly, I do not have too much confidence in the conduct of a certain group of admins on Commons and Russavia would be among that group.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I note that Cla68's two edits for 6 April 2012, immediately before his block there, have been deleted.[15] The reason for the block was, in part, "linking to offline harassment". This looks very similar to what happened here. Prioryman (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be very interested to know what was suppressed there, and, more interestingly, who suppressed it given the claim linked previously from a third party that Russavia was "blocking anyone who disagreed with him". Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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

• I appreciate all the advice. Don't worry, I won't be including any links in my statement even though two of them have actually been linked to by another editor higher on this page and two of them took place on official WMF mailing lists. I will also be dissecting Beeblebrox's and SomeGuy's handling of this incident, which, IMO, were extremely amateurish and ham-handed. Finally, I will note that three editors who I have disagreed with in the past or have expressed a strong dislike for Wikipediocracy and its members, including someone who "banned" me from his talk page, have shown up here to try to influence administrators not to unblock me. I know that this kind of behavior seems to be part of Wikipedia's culture, but it needs to stop.
• To start with, Beeblebrox and SomeGuy, could you please give me the link(s) to the checklist you followed when responding to the "outings" in your capacity as oversight admins? Also, could you please give me the link to the guideline(s) and best practices pages you use to assist you in critical thinking/decision making in responding to such incidents? Also, Beeblebrox, how did you become aware of the alleged "outing" on Ms Gardner's talk page? Did someone email you? If so, who? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• A quote from Wikipediocracy has been posted above, starting "Since I still can't edit my talk page, I will respond to Newyorkbrad's comment here." Did you write that? Do you still hold the views expressed in that text? Do you believe that outing is allowed under certain conditions? Do you intend to use Wikipedia for more discussion of the person who was outed? Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Outing is generally allowed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard although I'm not sure if I have ever posted there. If I did, it was awhile ago. I don't intend to focus the discussion on the person in question (who outed themselves, by the way). Instead, I will be focusing on the larger picture, such as how Wikipedia handles criticism (WP:BADSITES and the like), the chaotic, inefficient, amateurish, unequal, inconsistent way WP is administered, and how established editors with dishonest agendas gameplay to accomplish their goals. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Johnuniq's questions seem like good faith ones. You've ignored most of them, including the key ones. Are you willing to answer them? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure Johnuniq can ask follow-up questions. By the way, Demiurge, were you drawn to this discussion because of the connection to Wikipediocracy and do have strong feelings on the subject? I ask because it appears you violated WP:BLP in that diff. Do you feel you should have been blocked for that comment? Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• You might review WP:COIN before claiming that outing is allowed. The notice includes

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

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

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

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

• I know what it says, and there is a fundamental conflict between what it says and the purpose of that board, which is designed to identify individuals and their supposed ulterior motives for editing Wikipedia. It is one of the most obvious dichotomies of Wikipedia that I know of. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• In view of the outing and your just-stated view, my questions above are quite reasonable, and the fact that their core remains unanswered suggests that you have no intention of avoiding mention of the outed editor—mentions that may compound the outing already performed. Let's reduce this to the simplest issue: Do you undertake to never mention the outed editor at Wikipedia (other than in response to issues that others have raised somewhere like Arbcom)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Since that editor is not indeffed, but subject to a fixed-term block, by asking him to forswear any mention of the editor you are essentially asking for Cla68 to submit to a voluntary interaction ban. I do not think there is any need to compel Cla68 to agree to such a term.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, WP:OUTING applies everywhere, but, like most rules on WP, it isn't always enforced. It is often violated at WP:COIN without any repercussions. I violated it very recently when I identified an account as a sockpuppet of another account (which happens to be the real name of the editor). I wasn't blocked or warned, nor should I have been, but it was technically a violation and such violations happen frequently in sockpuppetry cases. I'm not defending Cla68's actions, but let's not pretend that outing always results in sanctions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• If X (the outed editor) returns to Wikipedia there will be plenty of people who will monitor X's actions, and Cla68's attention would not be required for that. My above question is whether Cla68 will undertake to never mention X (or anything relating to X's situation as outlined in the outing, except if raised by someone else at Arbcom). If X and Cla68 happen to edit the same article, naturally they can and should discuss the article—the question is whether Cla68 will discuss the editor. It is not relevant whether some people think that X was not outed, or that Cla68 should not have been blocked for outing X because OTHERSTUFF—what the community deserves to hear is whether there is an undertaking to not repeat anything like the incident in question. Normally my question would be resolved before unblocking, and it now appears likely that the question will be evaded because no one is compelled to do anything. Nevertheless, it should go on the record whether Cla68 agrees to not mention X as a person (it would be fine to say that X was edit warring, or adding undue text, or similar). Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevin's unblock of User:Cla68

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

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

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

Discuss this

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

— Hex (❝?!❞) 07:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

But he's not blocked.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

He is however de-sysopped 'pending investigation'. 'Free Kevin from persecution and wikipolitics' might be more accurate, but doesnt work so well on a banner. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

After deciding that the 1st use of the block/unblock privilege in nearly 3 years should be to unilaterally overturn two Oversight member block reviews. It's not like he was using the tools everyday and desysopping would affect the community. --DHeyward (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out at the other discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#General discussion, there was nothing in Kevin's actions to necessitate action of this grade, which implies that his continued access to the sysop tools is an immediate danger to the project. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As the blocking policy at the time Kevin undid the block had no restriction on doing so, it was within his judgement and remit as an administrator to undo an indef block if the user convinced him he was not going to repeat the offence. That ARBCOM are now seeking to re-write the blocking policy by passing a motion to justify their de-sysopping is beyond stupidity. What should have happened is they tell Kevin 'Dont do that again' then opened up a discussion to go through it. As it stands Cla has said he wouldnt post the offending info again (despite there being far from consensus that what he did was outing as per the outing policy) and he is still blocked. I assume Kevin has said to Arbcom he wouldnt re-unblock if they wanted to wheel-war the block back, and he has had his tools removed 'pending investigation'. An investigation that is going on behind closed doors while arbcom rushes to make the blocking policy reflect their actions after the fact. This stinks to high heaven, where is the immediate danger that requires either Cla stay blocked or Kevin lose tools? There is none. And frankly every arb who voted in favour of this needs to take a long hard look at themselves and their ethics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect that there was no restriction. The block text states: "malicious WP:OUTING, please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team". IRWolfie- (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In my parlance "please" indicates a non-binding request, rather than an unequivocal order.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Sanity is a relative thing, and not always easy to judge simply from one's edits. Unless I'm missing something, Cla68 was unwilling to fully agree to my earlier suggestion that he say that "whether or not he agrees with wp:Outing, in future he will comply with it." That leads me to suspect both that the block was justified and that the unblock was unjustified. I'm not an oversighter so I'm not privy to the information that would lead me to judge the initial block for myself, but I also take some comfort from the fact that we have an audit committee, if anyone really thinks the block isn't supported by policy then they would be the people to go to. I'm sympathetic to Cla68's view that sometimes reporting a conflict of interest should justify infringing the outing policy, and I might even support a policy change to that effect. However where I differ from Cla68 is that I'd counsel complying with current policy until a new policy can be agreed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats kind of the problem, he did agree to do that, which is why Kevin lifted the block. However apparently arbcom have found thats its not a normal admins call to lift indef blocks by functionaries when the person has agreed to not repeat the offence that got them an indef block. Hence why they have re-blocked Cla, removed Kevins mop, and are now retroactively passing motions to justify it under policy. Its gone way beyond the original block at this point, so thats pretty much a waste of time discussing it as any attempt to discuss the dubious nature of it gets rev-del. Look at the history of this page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There's actually been no discussion removed other than the removal of the reposted offending link again. (And the rev-del/suppression only hid the previous versions that contained that link - it did not remove anything from the current talk page) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have used 'shut down' rather than rev-del. I was referring more to elsewhere than this specific page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, understood -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@Only in death. I'm pretty sure that Cla68 was not agreeing to generally comply with the policy but instead making some limited commitments re one fellow editor. If he subsequently agreed to comply with the policy then I'd be interested in a link to that. I don't know whether the difference between Cla68's initial response and my suggestion was intentional or not, but I would certainly want clarification from him before supporting an unblock. ϢereSpielChequers 09:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You might be waiting awhile, he cant talk at the moment as when they put the block back they also reinstated the removal of talk page access. Excessive given his commitment not to repost the problem info. However his point was not that he wouldnt comply with policy, it was that (in his opinion) what he did didnt violate policy, as such a commitment not to do that specific thing again should be more than enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect he has other channels of communication in addition to his talkpage. It seems to me there was a difference of opinion amongst those who participated in this discussion. Some like you saw his commitments as adequate, others, including myself, weren't happy that he only gave a commitment not to do certain types of edits re one individual and wasn't willing to give a broad commitment to comply with the outing policy. Regardless of the CU angle I would be uncomfortable seeing an unblock of someone blocked for malicious outing unless they committed to comply with the Outing policy. ϢereSpielChequers 23:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, your use of 'malicious' there is telling. Thats a subjective judgement. And depressingly we cant discuss that in detail because to do so would require revealing things that have been oversighted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That he was blocked for malicious outing is simply a statement of fact. Whether it was outing and whether it was malicious may well have been decisions that require subjective judgment - though not from me as I didn't do the block and am not an oversighter. Yes that is a doubly awkward aspect to this - I don't personally know whether it was malicious or whether I'd agree with the oversighters if I had access to the same info as they had. But I take some comfort in that we have an audit committee that exists and could be appealed to if those who do know the full story think the Oversighters involved made a mistake. So all I can do is treat this as a case where someone has been blocked for malicious outing, and in that case I think it important that before we let someone back we get a full commitment that they agree to comply with the outing policy. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply of Cla68 to ArbCom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cla's talk page access

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

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

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

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

Gaming the system

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

I do not think that Cla is going to be banned, but even if he is, he would not be banned by the community. He'd be banned by a few sickos like yourself, russavia and demiurge1000. 31.193.141.239 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)