Talk:Cave Clan

Using my real name on the Cave Clan entry
Sorry, forget how to post/format correctly and i forget my log in.

I notice that my real name keeps getting added to this entry (at least it's meant to be my real name, however the middle name is slightly wrong). I don't care that it is on here. Even when I delete it, it's still in the History.

As I have mentioned before, the Cave Clan is a non-violent group that is illegal. The reason my real name is being put in the Cave Clan entry is not for informative reasons, it's 100% vendictive. The only person that would know my full name (or close enough as it was when I last took it down) is a mentally ill explorer who took me to court for an intervention order. Intervention orders are given out at the drop of a hat and yet this request for one was dismissed.

So I've added to it all again. Pointing out that it's bullshit that my name keeps getting added.

I suppose I'm meant to threaten legal action (it has been explained to me how to start doing this), but really I can't be bothered.

There is so much I could add to this entry, but half of it is bullshit or has grabbed at things that were done by indivdual members or by kids (us) back in the 80s.

So yeah, I could write about the good things the Cave Clan has done and post actual newspaper clippings (for proof), but why I bother when some idiot can post my real name with NO PROOF.

Thanks,

Doug (d o u g      @ cave  clan.o  rg  )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.41.230 (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Dougo (working on the assumption this is actually you -- probably a safe one) - just saying that I happen to agree with you. While I wouldn't advise mentioning legal threats on here, those references you mention could be a damn sight more useful than some of the rubbish we've been able to scrape together here in the past; if you look at the history further back, you'll see that this article has at times consisted of 90% POV-pushing, mostly by people looking to criticize the group at every turn. Another thing I should mention before those with vested interests beat me to it is that you generally should avoid controversial editing articles of organisations/groups that you're affiliated with. As I said, in this case I fully agree that your name shouldn't really be mentioned, particularly as nobody has been able to cough up a reliable reference (or as you point out, any reference at all) for it. There's a lot of folks here who've done their best to keep this article well balanced, so please recognise that we aren't all bad :P SMC (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has been a battleground for some time. I've both redacted and suppressed a number of edits for serious WP:BLP and privacy concerns. The page is now semi-protected for a period of time to prevent further issues - A l is o n  ❤ 22:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be about publishing the facts. It should not be about publishing only what you agree with or that from those who you agree with. If there is a reliable source for the name of a person, criminal or not, it should be used. See Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were both aliases. Their real names are revealed in the article. It does not matter if some one using an alias wants privacy or not, publish FACTS, not rumours. The three aliases used by these people should be replaced by real names where possible. Considering that Doug / Dougo has stated that he is a member off a gang that is illegal, why should Wikipedia be protecting his real name instead of chasing facts? It should be noted that Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch also claimed to be non violent but in fact murdered many people. Not saying any of this gang's members are murders, but that they should not be considered to be an authoritative source about themselves when they have a vested interest in the article. Also, editors, if you have a point of view about the article, then you should not be letting your biases slip into it. If you were journalists in my team I'd be firing you. Unless of course you write some sensational piece that sold me lots of papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.75.100 (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to classify a group as unlwaful please provide the documents saying that Doug or Cave Clan have been convicted of an offence which would justify the group as 'illegal'. It seems that you have played judge, jury and now wish to play executioner. Please reflect on your own comments about bias before defaming others. Mr.weedle (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rumours??
The main page mentions the Chamber is rumored to be nder the Melbourne CBD. Perhaps some one should clear that up or that be removed. I don't think Wikipedia is about publising rumors. 58.169.38.210 (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Wombat99

I have knowledge of the drain that is being referred to here. It is indeed under one of the main shopping districts in Melbourne, however I cannot find any proper references to it's location. 211.26.221.162 (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Access info
Should this article really give entry information to a drain? From what I hear, unexperienced people have died recently after going down a man hole in Sydney? Does putting this information here not raise a liability issue?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.179.15 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't like having even slightly detailed locational information within the article, it does provide an example of the type of locations this group visits. Besides, if an "inexperienced explorer" wanted to find an entrance to a drain, there are countless sources on the Internet to find such entry points (a leaked Google Earth database of Cave Clan locations is still floating around somewhere). It's a bit far fetched to blame a Wikipedia article if someone gets washed away down a drain ("it's your own damn fault" attitude), though I suppose it could happen with litigation being what it is. It's not for me to decide. That's up to either the person who put it there, or if it ever comes to it, WP's/WM's brass. SMC (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Examples of the types of locations this group visits can be provided without giving detailed access instructions. S.Nadir (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cave Clan activities
This whole section needs a cleanup. The majority of the information is unsourced, and the sources that are provided do not relate to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.170.200 (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I count three sources. For the time being, it's enough. SMC (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All the references in this section point to generic 'about' pages. None of which appear to contain information about the specific items mentioned in this section. Unless someone can provide actual references, this section should be either removed or at least made less specific. S.Nadir (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

caveclan and vandalism
Both of the links/sources for the vandalism section aren't good enough. One doesn't prove that this group 'graffiti's, and the other is 404 60.241.170.200 (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

] ] There needs to be more mention of the vandalism caveclan members commit particularly in historical significant sites, this article is obviously written by someone in the caveclan and is highly biased, there is a big problem at historical significant sites with caveclan graffiti and vandalism, including vandalism that has been done recently (2006/07). They have little respect for the historic aesthetics of sites they explore. Many professional/amateur military archaeologists are strong in condemning the caveclan for their vanadalism (particularly Graeme steinback, military archaeologist who studies Newcastle area military archaeologist) and several other people I will chose not to mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.17.99 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally, the Cave Clan only applies permanent tags - i.e. spraypaint - to underground concrete/brick walls. Sometimes individual explorers may tag a bluestone wall or topside location, but this is not encouraged by the Clan. Stickers are used a lot, which are removable. Generally, urban explorers want to preserve the locations they visit, not disfigure them; hence the Cave Clan's strict 'no graffitists' rule. I'm pretty sure most explorers world-wide basically adhere to this unofficial bylaw. Unless the graffiti specifically reads 'cave clan' then it is a bit presumptuous to automatically pin the blame on them.
 * And if it is obvious the Clan did it, then why not contact them with your concerns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.120.8 (talk • contribs)

Cave Clan was started by a group of teenagers. It did do graffiti (not tagging trains, but drains). In time, as it became more obvious that the Clan was growing to a size where rules would be needed, a rule was enforced that graffiti would only be done on concrete featureless sections of tunnels.

Now days graffitists who join the Clan are advised that they are joining to explore and not do graffiti. Graffitists who graffiti locations that should not be touched are no longer invited to Cave Clan activities.

Cave CLan graffiti is generally done with a small marker to mark the visit with a date and names for future explorers.

It is crap like this on Wikipedia that encourages a few anti-Cave Clan people to tag Cave Clan across a nice section of tunnel, take a photo and then publish it on the Net as "proof".

Cave Clan, as a group, does not condone graffiti in abandoned building or tunnels other than drains.

Cave Clan is the major urban exploration group in Australia (if not the world) and this makes it a target for try-hard wannabees (I could write up 50 examples of groups that were going to take over the scene and become the number one UE group). They never last, but they cause plenty of trouble for the Clan along the way. We are not all angels, but don't believe the hype - most of us are just nerds who want to protect the locations we explore and we are getting better at it as the group matures (it is now into its 23rd year).

Thanks, 124.181.88.218 (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Doug.


 * I found the image more than a little worrying, not because it *may* have been written by a member of the clan but because it might NOT have been written by the clan. Remember, anyone with access to public works has the physical capability to access those works. Anyone can tag a logo with spraypaint. From a neutral POV, I don't like the idea of an image being prominently displayed ie. "graffiti at Middle Head (insinuating it was done by a Clan member)"; rather it could be used as an example of a Cave Clan tag. SMC (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I once stumbled upon a sight which was a Cave Clan haunt. The location was the Malabar Battery. Their graffiti was all over the place especially all over one of the rooms inside the tunnel network. I should have taken a picture of that to. The room was completely decorated with their logo and tasteless graffiti.

The Cave Clan has a fantastic reputation for its care towards the sites they visit and the time taken in many cases to report to authorities damage or unsafe access to many places. This wiki page only serves as a misinformed attempt to cover a group that many have tried but failed to encaptulate. As previously mentioned the group has been the target of much media speculation and urban myth, and as such, many would like to claim membership to group. This would also include painting the logo of the clan much like a common graffitti artist.


 * What's so hard about signing posts with four tildes? Sting au  Buzz Me...   11:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Having taken photos inside the bunkers, does this not show the photographer had to tresspass to get the image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.59.52 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

caveclan and graffiti
Whilst caveclan attempt to condone their vandalism with lines such as "we NOW condone it" or "other people do it" it is still a poor excuse for what the caveclan HAS DONE and STILL DOES, besides that the caveclan are also involved in TRESPASS which is a CRIMINAL ACT, punishable by ENCLOSED LANDS ACT and in some cases the CRIMES ACT 1914 (section 89 would be best reference) so while the caveclan may claim they have the best interests of a historical location, realistically they dont, they HAVE and WILL continue to graffiti and vandalise these sites, after all, some sights that caveclan enter involve "breaking into" regardless of whether it has been broken into before, simply the caveclan is involved in criminal activities and if you are considering at getting involved in more of the historical aspects of a site, it is strongly advisable that you do not get involved with the caveclan, also if you do get involved with the caveclan, legitimate organisations and persons who do ACTUALLY HAVE the best interest of a historical site at heart, they will tend to look down on you and in most cases be reluctant in dealing with you. 58.107.151.82 (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk)
 * This talk page is not intended for general discussion/criticism about the Cave Clan. Rather, it's intended for use as a discussion area to improve the article itself. Please keep your personal opinions (ie. "don't join XXX group, they're bad") away from this page and invest in a blog instead. Unless you can reference directly from a third-party source that the Cave Clan is bad for X reason, it should not be mentioned within the article. As a side note, the Controversy section is an example of how every article's Controversy section (when applicable) should be referenced. SMC (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cave Clan does not condone nor promote vandalism, graffiti, theft, or wanton destruction as may be implied by the above comment. A small amount of research over at the associated Cave Clan websites will reveal the correct policies. People denied access to Cave Clan member portals, sites, member lists, and further information, such as the original author of this article was, should be taken with a grain of salt. A handful of adventures do not an authority make.

Cave Clan does not publicly advertise explorable sites due to the following reasons:
 * - The safety of new and inexperienced explorers, as well as regular explorers is placed at risk
 * - Many sites contain hazardous material. Eg, wartime bunkers often contain asbestos
 * - Graffiti Risk. Many explorable locations have been ruined by graffiti once publicly disclosed
 * - Once locations grow in popularity most are locked down and are no longer explorable
 * - Location Destruction. Some locations are sensitive and contain much historical value. Public popularity has proven several times in the past to have led to the destruction of such locations. Eg Bankstown Bunker being burnt out floor to ceiling by vandals.

Please contact Cave Clan via their web page for further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.131.44 (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cave Clan sites

 * Urban exploration
 * Bankstown Bunker
 * Middle Head Fortifications
 * Georges Head Battery
 * Malabar Battery
 * Bunnerong Power Station
 * Henry Head Battery
 * Banks Battery
 * Hill 60

I thought the cave clan were known for exploring drains? The recent additions to this wiki make it look like an index to bunker pages rather than an article on the cave clan. Why are these 'cave clan sites' even in the article, let alone the talk page?? As someone mentioned recently, inexperienced people have died while 'urban exploring'. Surely listing locations and access details to these sites is very irresponsible and could lead to more people being injured or killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.14.42 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored and you should know yourself, being a member of the cave clan that they explore much more than just drains, you know the websites. You know that they have a movie night inside the bunker pictured above, or is it the other with the long white room further towards the cliff that is accessible via the small hatch in the side of the gun emplacement, you know the one. Check out the their website if you haven't already. Have a look at the gallery. Find the pictures of woolloomoolloo reservoir, the same pictures that I email to the local council of that area. If you are concerned about safety don't worry the ones that I have mentioned in the artilce are being looked into and should not be accessible  for to much longer. Even the middle head bunkers are soon to be sealed. Contact the Sydney Harbour federation trust for further details about access to these sites. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane site?
"while in Brisbane historic red-brick, oviform tunnels such as "Brisbane Darkie" take the Cave Clans interest." I think quoting individual drains within a city is a bit much. There are several drains in Brisbane that the Cave Clan discovered during the 90's, ie. Burford's Batcave and 100th. Unless someone can provide a reference that this a popular haunt of the group, this should be removed. SMC (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks as though the ip address that wrote this small section of info that is also sourced on cc website was only trying to make mention of some of the cc's major attractions and not list every single drain in the city. I think that at the moment its okay as long as we don't include a list of every single drain in Australia. The page blankers of this article are clan members who don't want these locations known to the public becuase they fear that these sites will be locked down. The main concerns would would be the Bunnerong Power Station, and the black oil storage reservoir that is located next door to the Art Gallery of New South Wales. My next step would be to report these locations to the local councils in these areas, due to safety concerns, as in, breathing in toxic fumes inside the reservoir that I have been informed are cancerous. They take people into this reservoir, the water looks clear but there is a thin film of oil or diesel on the surface of the water plus a strong smell of gasoline or diesel which you can also smell in the park above. If you are inside this reservoir and shine your torch through the fumes you will see a beam of mist, and all this next door to the Art Gallery of New South Wales. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well what I'm concerned about is that this is unsourced. I suppose it's not that big a deal at the moment; just something that should be considered if someone is going to start adding any "official" popular areas with the Cave Clan. And to be honest, I don't think whatever you do about the topsides will have much effect. I think they've proven in the past that they can get past even some of the best obstacles (I remember reading a story relating to the CC where they repeatedly removed Water Board locks on drain entrances and replaced them with their own, and the cycle went on till the Board finally soldered the bloody thing shut). I'm not affiliated with the CC in any way; I'm just a regular Wikipedia editor interested in the "theory" side of draining (at this stage, anyway) :) SMC (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The information about the Brisbane darkies and the Melbourne addition was added by an ip address. I got the information about the Darling Harbour float out and the bunnerong tunnels from their website. I have also participated in theses events including the Bunnerong tunnels so I know what I am talking about. When I was with this mob, I found that all they wanted to do was walk through drains and sewer pipes. . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, understood. SMC (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to concerns raised by an anon about unsourced comments within the "Activities", I have decided that this "favourite locations" section has to go. Completely unsourced and even if there was a source, it would no doubt be the subject of great debate amongst members of the clan. SMC (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The section that you removed was added by an anon. The other information that I added was partly taken from their website. Just because the subject is of great debate to the Clan doesn't mean that it should be removed. The cave clan do not own the article. You are right about all their drain locations on google earth, I stumbled upon this by accident. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was referring to the lack of a source at all on that comment (and pointing out that any source found would likely be rather unreliable). SMC (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Location Discussion
The article mentions the Domain Reservoir and Bunnerong Power Station. If I follow any of the cited links I can't find any mention of these locations. Should this not be removed? Dmod (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to follow these links too, but they don't seem to lead to any information about what is referred to. The "Also See" stuff doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject of this page ... none of these links even seems to mention the cave clan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.37.16 (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have replaced the locations with ones that are actually mentioned in the sydney cave clan link. I have been unable to find any evidence that the cave clan explore any of the particular bunkers listed in the 'see also' section. If these are 'sites that would fall into the category of Urban Exploration' there is a seperate wiki for that stuff. S.Nadir (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The see also list is a list of explorable sites and does not have to be related directly to the cave clan, even though it is. There is a reference to a website in the list and all these sites are in that ref, minus one or two. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about Cave Clan, and if there are no direct links to the actual bunkers in the cited references these links should go, perhaps to be moved to Urban Exploration Dmod (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I have mentioned before, these site fall into the category or Urban exploration, they are explorable sites, the reference proves that they fall into this category and its doubles up as a list of further reading for people who want to find out more about these sites and leads them to the exact location in Google maps.

I also have new references concerning the recently remove content. I found it in a newspaper article from December last year. The Sydney Morning Herald, something along the lines of an undercover reporter joining the cave clan temporarily and uncovering some of there sites (the ones mentioned in the recently deleted content) as soon as I fix the citation template I am adding the content back in. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk)

A list of old war bunkers in and around Sydney doesn't seem like valid "further reading" for an article about a group that, if I read correctly, started in Melbourne. These links seem to belong on a page about urban exploration, or perhaps one about bunkers. They provide no information at all about the cave clan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.33.250 (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well they are here because they are in that category. The only reason you don't want them here is because you are a member of the cc and you don't want you sites listed, thats it. . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The location part now seems to be sourced. I'm not entirely sure whether these should be included or not, as yet again there's no way of knowing 100% that the CC frequents, "owns", or originally discovered these sites. They just explored them, just like every other urbex group, so I'm unsure as to whether these sites should be included. Nevertheless, I would advise against making rather sweeping statements that a user doesn't want content there because they're a member of the group. Editors have concerns about this article, which is why the talk page is intended to establish consensus, and not to dismiss a concern out of hand as being somehow biased. SMC (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These are sites that they explore. One ref, the link covers the info in part, the other covers the rest. User Dmod has already admitted being a certain person that is link to this group, see the talk page for Bankstown Bunker.. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

References
 * 1) 2 = non link
 * 2) 3 = Generic Aust Geographic page = Only available in hard copy, which is a valid reference.
 * 3) 9 = “Cannot be displayed” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.43.245 (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The location part is just not right - The references are either wrong, not related at all to Cave Clan or long shots at best. The photographs again are not about the 'Cave Clan' nor is there a direct cited link between the Cave Clan and the photographs. Dmod (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) insist on reverting all major edits that other editors make? It seems all of items in question are links to pages either authored or heavily edited by him. Is there another issue or agenda at play here that some editors are not privy to? S.Nadir (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard that it is because the Cave Clan refuse to provide him with information about explorable locations. Apparently he wants to lock up all of "their locations" by discussing them in the public space. As with many other editors sans a NPOV he is trying to spread misinformation.

Take a look at the image of the snake above - he might as well have all National Parks banned. The ridiculousness of his attitude continues with the image of the bat - the poor creature was resting while he was firing his strobe light at it and he attempts to justify it with some silly rhetoric. I had to battle with him to have my own photographs credited to me (in the Bankstown Bunker article) and he continued to undo these edits until he was blocked Dmod (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are saying that the cc refused to provide info. That does not really need to be discussed here. Most of the bunker articles that I wrote were made possible because because I learnt about these sites from the guy that is in charge of new members. Some members had a lot to tell, but lets not worry about that. The explanation for the Bankstown Bunker photos is on the talk page for that article. I was never blocked for this, check my block logs for both websites.

I have provided new refs. The cc removed the information about the Darling Harbour drain because of this situation. The first ref is a hard copy, so go and find your own. The second ref covers some of the information in part.. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam, a reference needs to back up or justify what you are attempting to argue. For example - if you were to say "there are orange balls in Rome", giving a reference to an article regarding the properties of orange balls doesn't give any support to the idea those orange balls actually exist in Rome. Your references don't refer to the Cave Clan. Dmod (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent edit because I can still find no evidence that the cave clan actually explore the location mentioned ('the domain reservoir'). The suggestion that they 'tresspass onto' this site may be damaging to their reputation and does not comply with WP:BURDEN S.Nadir (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up
I would like to work with other editors in an effort to clean this article up. I think in order for it to be of encyclopedic quality it needs to be concise, well referenced and stick strictly to topic. This is an article about the Cave Clan - an Australian urban exploration group. This article should not disseminate rumors. It isn't about Sydney's history, Sydney's bunkers or even explicitly Urban Exploration itself. As this is the case I also think we should remove the list of "Cave Clan sites" which are not exclusively Cave Clan, are not explicitly about the Cave Clan and are supported by little more than a reference to some unrelated website. I encourage further discussion and would like to see better references for what currently remains as parts of what I read still can't be found in the cited websites and articles. Dmod (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. If it's meant to be about cave clan, then at least it should all be relevant, and backed up with true references. The reference quoting someone saying things about "amateurs" in connection with the drowning at Maroubra for example ... if you read the referenced article carefully, it actually quotes "an experienced explorer" and not someone specifically involved with the cave clan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.38.78 (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article is being slowly torn apart by people with various agendas. You need only look at the talk page to get a good idea of what's happening here. I will speak very frankly here: those who view this Wikipedia article could care less about, say, whether Cave Clan sites are shut down. This article is about the Cave Clan, the ORGANISATION, not about "possibly frequented/abused sites", or (bluntly) "things the Cave Clan does that we think suck, but our only references are fairly irrelevant photographs". Yes, there can be a controversy (graffiti?) section, but for crying out loud let's at least have it referenced. Is it? Good. Keep it that way. When I first came across this article's talk page, it was filled with pictures of supposed Clan vandalism and something about a bat being disturbed (all completely unsourced!). I thought "what utter crap. At least it isn't in the article." I think both having a cleanup and keeping it clean is a great idea. I like the way the article is set out right now - the Activities/Membership sounds a bit promo prose (I've read something very similar on the Clan website) but I think it sounds better than it once did. Initially, I didn't like having Predator's quote so prominently displayed there (it's a great quote, and I've used it myself to describe UE attitudes), but then I realised - it does summarise the Cave Clan's philosophy pretty well. So let's keep this as a "fresh, clean" copy of the article, and keep the jaded points of view OUT of it. And for the record, I wouldn't be opposed at all to sweeping reverts if POV content (from either side of this "argument") sneaks its' way back in. We can't risk this article falling back into a rather sorry state yet again. SMC (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, I think this is a good fresh starting point. I think it needs a little more work but I will be vigilant from now on to ensure the garbage doesn't come back. Being new to wikipedia, what is the procedure for having this talk page cleaned up too? Dmod (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, talk pages don't get cleaned up unless they become excessively long or contain personal attacks. I was just referring to this talk page (specifically, the images) as an example of some of the POV that's I've seen being shoved into this article. SMC (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference number 2 "Tunnel Culture". Herald Sun. does not seem to be a link to anything ... and should probably be removed.

Reference number 6 "Discovering Drain Treks Bizzare", Sun Herald, 1999-05-30. Retrieved on 2007-08-02. is an invalid link and, as it's the only basis for the controversy section, that should probably go too if anyone knows how to edit this stuff properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.38.78 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, let's trim everything which is ill-referenced. Dmod (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This whole thing needs a clean up. Bad references need to be removed, and general content should be replaced with info that can actually be verified. I also think the content has strayed a little too much off topic. This page should be about the cave clan, not general urban exploration or bunkers and wildlife protection. I'd be quite happy to help with this, but it would be good to know that the updates and improvements wont just be indiscriminately reverted. S.Nadir (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Advertising?
Adam, stop accusing me of advertising - I have added a quote from someone who founded one of the branches of the Clan. I've provided references to back the fact that they (Predator) started the Sydney Cave Clan, and I've then quoted them verbatim. This quote doesn't advertise anything, it doesn't encourage anything. Get back to the job of building the article with referenced facts. Dmod (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote reads very promotional and unencyclopedic, so I have removed it. In fact, this entire article has a very unencyclopedic tone to it and I intend doing some heavy editing to it. You need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not everything that has a source and can be quoted is suitable for an encyclopedia article. I would also ask that you stop reverting and edit warring on this page. Sarah 02:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be interested to see what changes you make, Sarah. We've been through edit warring in this article before; previously it was being used as a promotional vehicle for Adam J.W.C.'s point of view. Indeed, in the article's current state it contains an image with the caption "Cave Clan vandalism". I think it's been stated before that there is NO WAY at all to verify who created graffiti; anyone can write "Cave Clan" on the concrete wall of a drain - and all that was requested on this article's talk page was a generic picture of a drain to represent the type of location an organisation such as this might explore. More or less, the Cave Clan article is being torn apart by the two "sides", and it will be good to see a new perspective on these issues. SMC (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding details about activities and locations is not pov, especially when it was sourced from their website. The information was removed from there website so that it could not be used as a reference for this article. Adding a see also list is not pov either.. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about activities/locations details. I'm talking about your POV capping adding, which I see you have fixed. Thanks :) SMC (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Photography
I just reverted an edit which added an image of Henry's Head Bunkers. This has been discussed at length here and the unanimous descision was that we not add photos of locations that may or may not be explored by Cave Clan members; Remember these locations are not exclusively owned, explored by or even discovered by the Cave Clan.

This also begs the question - what types of images do people think are suitable? Dmod (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a very generic and nondescript photo of a storm water tunnel? possibly with silhouettes of cave clan explorers in it? I don't know that it needs all that much in the way of photos. S.Nadir (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your are correct, I have added a picture of a drain, with ue explorers in the distance, there identities cannot be determined and the drain has been tagged cave clan. You cannot prove that this was or wasn't done by clan members but its just about everything that S.nadir has requested. I think this one picture is okay and is relevant to the text in that section. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You cannot prove that this was or wasn't done by clan members - this is what worries me Adam. This is the kind of POV pushing that was all going on before you were blocked (for an unrelated but disruptive matter). If you could please stop putting such a slant on every image that you place on the article it would make things that much easier. Okay, the image contains a tunnel with the words "Cave Clan" on it. Good, but there's no need to go around saying "this was done BY the Cave Clan" - because unless we're psychics, we can't tell who wrote it. Instead, a generic caption such as "A drain being explored." might have sufficed, or perhaps something that gives (loose) location details ie. "A drain located in Melbourne". SMC (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so we have a picture of a drain being explored. To make things easier I can remove the graffiti from the photo and change the caption to a drain being explored in Sydney or something similar. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or I could simply change the caption so that it reads'a drain in Sydney being explored.

The graffiti is there because it is there. It just happens to be in the photo and the graffiti does say cave clan. . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying that you have draining photos which don't contain supposed Clan vandalism? SMC (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I do have a couple, but I have only ever gone out once with camera to explore drains. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remember here that Wikipedia does not publish original research. VeeOh Ice (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct, which is why I'm worried about photos' captions saying things that we can't prove. And while I appreciate the reminder, how did you become so familiar with WP's policies? This talk page note is your single contribution. SMC (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should introduce myself then :). I've made a few edits in the past, but never really bothered to create an account. I figured I'd do the right thing and read up on all of wiki's policies like one is invited to do when one creates an account before I got started.  You'll see my contribution count go up, don't you worry about that!  Since I'm kind of new around here, any advice you can give me would be appreciated.  VeeOh Ice (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough. Welcome aboard :) SMC (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"generic and nondescript" - The title of this photo has (i presume) a cave clan site name and the location of this tunnel in it. It also contains graffiti. These are both things that i don't think we should be giving much publicity. As SMC points out, i'm sure Adam.J.W.C or somebody around here has a photo of a random drain without graffiti. Also, does anyone know if this photo is typical of an Australian drain? S.Nadir (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the graffiti in the in an image, it just shows that someone who has heard of or knows about the cave clan has been in that drain. I don't think that giving away the location in the image in the title is a breach of wikipedias policies. T. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a concrete box drain. Suburban drains are usually RCP's no matter where you are in the world; but each city has its' own "special" drain types. And while a different image would be nice, ie. no graffiti with "Cave Clan" on the wall, for the time being this image and caption will suffice. If you find another one, Adam, or anyone else does, please upload it. SMC (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what is wrong with the graffiti. The graffiti is written on an insignificant wall inside a drain that no one really cares about. Maybe the caption could be changed to say, Exploreres in an Australian drain or something. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC) There are more drain pictures in the page history. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cave Clan Investigation
I have no experience in setting up a section on the main page about the current rumours of investigation of the Cave Clan http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/29/2611473.htm

I also note that their website has been blanked. 124.168.96.150 (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed that a couple of days ago. If someone can write up a section about it that isn't a direct copyvio of the ABC, that would be good. SMC (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Link http://www.caveclan.org/aboutus.html is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.253.153 (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I just saw on a popular urban exploration forum (UER) that the site is just temporarily offline for an overhaul. Take what you will from it, but I doubt it's because of "leaked location information" appearing on CC sites. I've been over those sites before and I've never seen a hint of where a location is from them. I triple-checked when all of this controversy blew up. That all being said, it should probably be covered in a succinct paragraph stating the coroner's findings. As for the about us page (which is presumably being used as a reference in this article), my guess is that the website will be back online when the site managers feel its appropriate, so there's little we can do regarding references. I'll have a look around for some alternate sources, but it's a tough task finding a reliable resource (considering the nature of this organisation) that's not straight from the horse's mouth. SMC (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well SMCyou can't have looked very well. How many Mooney Mooney bridges are there? http://www.caveclan.org/photos/10.html I think that would qualify as a "hint". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.38.201 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a bridge room, not a drain. SMC (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SMC, yes it is quite obvious that it is a bridge room. I never stated it wasn't. But it is a site, / location. Hence the Cave Clan do give out information as to site / locations.

Now, does anyone have an issue with me adding information on coroner Hugh Dillion's reccomendations that the Cave Clan be investigated? I can refrence 8 live links so far. Unless you have a very good, and valid reason why this information should not be in the article, I intend to add it. I'll give a few days for reational discussion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.9.213 (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I propose to add- "Coroner Hugh Dillon investigating the death of two graffiti artists in a Sydney stormwater drain in 2008 has recommended police investigate a group known as the Sydney Cave Clan. Delivering his findings into the deaths deputy state coroner Hugh Dillon said he was concerned about the counter-cultural message by the group, which he said consisted of "shadowy characters".

Mr Dillon said he would recommend to police that they investigate the group and shut the website down after it was revealed that it publicised the drain and encouraged risk-taking activity. The inquest heard Mr Malinowsky, the sole survivor of the trio, was encouraged by a website from the so-called 'Cave Clan' - a group which dares people to explore urban underground spaces."

Most of that is a direct quote from http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2009/06/29/2611473.htm?section=justin and http://www.livenews.com.au/news/graffiti-deaths-spark-call-for-probe-into-cave-clan-group/2009/6/29/211431

Suggestions for alterative, but FACTUAL wording of this is welcome.

Links include- http://bananasinpyjamas.com/news/stories/2009/02/13/2491290.htm http://abc.gov.au/news/audio/2009/06/29/2611633.htm http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/graffiti-gang-should-be-probed-coroner-20090629-d2dv.html http://www.smh.com.au/national/cave-clan-secret-court-told-of-drain-tragedy-20090213-86n7.html http://southern-courier.whereilive.com.au/news/story/graffiti-artists-powerless-against-wall-of-water/ http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/graffiti-artists-powerless-against-wall-of-water/story-e6freuy9-1225743332845 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.48.125 (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind that at all. My only concern (and the reason I removed that section previously) was that the previous content was a direct copyright violation of an ABC news article. For what it's worth, you've missed the point of my pointing out the difference between a drain and a bridge room; I know you can read, but a bridge room is far less dangerous "giving out" information about than a drain. Yes it is a location, and yes it is location information, but it's not a drain; for instance, you cannot drown in it. I probably should've made my definition of a location clearer, since I almost exclusively focus on drains myself.. SMC (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"I almost exclusively focus on drains myself" So you would be a member of the Cave Clan then? That would explain some of your very pro Cave Clan biases. I don't think you're really appropriate to be editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.48.163 (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not a member of the Cave Clan, and I've never seen a need to join. I'm a drain photographer, so it's highly unlikely I'd even fit in with the CC crowd. My comment was related to what I explore - I tend to focus on drains rather than topsides (ie. abandonments). There are drainers in Australia who aren't members of the Clan, you know ;) SMC (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)