User:Pleasantville/User talk through 2-18-07

24.128.27.86
Can I ask that someone warn 24.128.27.86 (aka 209.244.43.215 aka 4.156.57.153 aka 172.129.211.70 aka 64.48.73.57 aka Christine Dolan) again about malicious edits?

Thanks,

Kathryn


 * A) you can add these warnings yourself by adding one of the appropriate templates from WP:Templates to her talk page. B) What sort of malicious edits? CascadiaTALK | HISTORY 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The ones linked from these pages:     

Looking at the page you recommended, I see I can protect the archive page from further modification. Thanks.


 * Actually, if you need a page protected, you'll have to have an admin do that. There is a place to do requests for protection at Requests for page protection. Let me know if you need additional help! CascadiaTALK | HISTORY 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to have a look later. I looked at the page and didn't entirely understand what to do. K Pleasantville 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask for someone to again warn Kathryn Cramer to stop abusing Wikipedia for her personal stalking and cyberstalking - albeit tenacious attempt - of Joseph A. Cafasso - her ex-friend and ex-partner. Neutrality is a standard at wiki. She is not adhering to such. Now, she is admitting she wanted to be transparent in her use of WP to go after Jose Cafasso. It would behoove Wikipedia Administrators to at least examine all of Plesantville's edis. Some "edits" are even quite unique. For instance, when is the last time that someone actually edited their email into a wikipedia post and offered themselves up as a source on another human being whom they had a relationship with? Other than this being quite declasse and trashy, this is not what wikipedia was designed for at all! Go to this url - and see it for yourself. It is unbelievable! I am not making this up. Look for yourself.....this is from the front page of "Talk:Veteran with disputed status" on wikipedia itself...scroll down and you will see "Joseph A. Cafasso is a con man, not a veteran. It's very clearcut. Email me if you need more details about his life. -Kathryn Cramer (kec@panix.com)." IF THIS IS ACCEPTABLE to wikipedia - then someone is not administering fast enough as Cramer zips and zags from one page to another! here is the url if someone doubts this extraordinary "edit." and if it has been deleted by the time you find it - maybe you should check history but it is there tonite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Veteran_with_disputed_status.....excerpt is below...keep reading -

Talk:Veteran with disputed status From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] List of veterans with disputed status I removed the "see also" section because the list implied that the individuals were disputed veterans, without explanation or citation. A list needs explanations for each entry. Below are the members of the list. If an editor has an explanation for why a person is a disputed veteran, the editor may re-add him under a section titled something like "list of disputed veterans". A new "see also" section may be added for entries related to the article title, such as "veterans", but disputed veterans should be kept out of it.

Joseph A. Cafasso Pat Robertson Brian Dennehy Wes Cooley Zell Miller George W Bush Arnold Schwarzenegger Arnold Murray It would be good to have some examples, but an explanation of the controversy next to the name would certainly be necessary. Also, some guys like John Kerry or George W. Bush have had various things disputed, but don't really fit into any of the categories given. - Matthew238 07:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

-DDerby-(talk) 19:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Joseph A. Cafasso is a con man, not a veteran. It's very clearcut. Email me if you need more details about his life. -Kathryn Cramer (kec@panix.com)

As I say - extraordinary edit by Cramer!

signed Christine Dolan February 6, 2007 10:45pm.

Personal Attacks/Situation out of hand/Wikibreak
First of all, BOTH of you need to stop, think, and chill out. Do we understand this? It is apparent this situation has gotten out of hand, and so I would as both of you to take a step back, a deep breath, and calm down. Although I am not an admin, as someone who has been on Wikipedia for a while, I think this whole issue can be dealt with without resorting to calling in the admins, at least at this time.

I would propose that both of you take a break from editing Wikipedia for a while, allow the situation to cool down. However, in trying to understand this whole situation, I've devised a little bit of dispute resolution.

In 200 words or less, CALMLY summarize in your own words your position on the argument. Citations are not needed, and please no rebuttals. Just a simple "I am doing X, and person B is seeing it as Y and is (a brief explanation of what the issue is)". Keep it brief, keep it calm, keep it simple. From that point, I will then make a recommendation of how best to handle this (Request for mediation from an admin, wikibreak, etc.).

Argument: Plesantville

There is no substantive disagreement that I know of. I would like Ms. Dolan to be blocked from editing of my talk pages. That’s all. Her quarrel with me is primarily financial, involving charges that ended up on my Amex card without my consent; they have their origins in a June 3rd motor vehicles police report. I am not trying to collect, nor have I attempted for some time.

Ms. Dolan and I were both victims of the con artist Joseph A. Cafasso in June/July of 2006, whom I knew exclusively under the alias “Lt. Col. Gerry Blackwood”. Ms. Dolan first met Cafasso in 1998 at an Accuracy in Media conference; I do not know the history of their relationship. My first contact with Cafasso was November of 2005. He introduced me via email to Ms. Dolan in May of 2006. As a result of her experience in June, Ms. Dolan suffered a conversion experience to Jack Idema’s cult following; Idema is currently serving time in Aghanistan for kidnapping and torture. Since July, I have had extensive correspondence with Dolan’s attorney, Mark Schamel, on the issue of Ms. Dolan’s defamation of me.

Ms. Dolan has made a large number of accusations, many of which are based on confabulation. She began writing me threatening and provocative letters at the beginning of January 2007. She has unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about me going back years of which I do not know the full extent. I do not know the basis of Dolan’s claim that I am “cyberstalking” Cafasso, nor do I understand why she would not want it known that she was one of his victims. Other than my objections to her edits, I have written nothing about Ms. Dolan on Wikipedia that is in any way negative.

Ms. Dolan has no prior interest in or involvement in Wikipedia. Her comments and edits to my Talk page are grandstanding for the purpose of providing supporting material for this blog post by Jack Idema’s publicist, Lynn Thomas: http://caosblog.com/4534. It is one of many posts about me by Thomas. KC Pleasantville 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

'''Argument: Mrs./Ms. Dolan'''

A response to your request is forthcoming, but not today - because of an emergency. This matter will be addressed. christine dolan february 7, 20007

If you want this situation resolved ASAP with as few problems, you might consider taking my offer for a 'dispute resolution'. PLEASE REMEMBER TO KEEP IT CALM. Write your words carefully and concisely. I'm doing this out of the goodness of my heart, so going over the 200 word limit or being far from calm will keep me from weighing both sides equally to come to an understanding of the situation and make a fair recommendation.

I would also ask that you both take a break from editing outside of this article, especially those articles in question, until all parties have a chance to talk this over.

Thank you. CascadiaTALK | HISTORY 04:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't need to go to arbitration. I am capable of ignoring her, if that's what's called for. Do note, however, Ms. Dolan's latest edit to my archived User talk page, in particular the "once bow is pulled" remark. KC Pleasantville 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only should this matter go to arbitration but I am requesting that David Wales' be engaged with this situation. This is a very serious matter. The lack of veracity and transparency provided to date is breathtakingly serious. A response is absolutely forthcoming - i have an emergency today. christine dolan february 7, 2007

There are a number of issues Ms. Dolan has raised in her Wikipedia edits (especially here), for example the whereabouts of my video camera, that have no relevance to Wikipedia, but rather are the subject of ongoing conversations with law enforcement and attorneys. KC Pleasantville 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I have not yet had the pleasure of reading Ms. Dolan's brief summary of the situation, so far a very clear picture has been painted. I will wait to comment further until Saturday, the 10th of February, 2007, or when Ms. Dolan adds her summary. As should everyone. The key here is not to engage in a "She did this, She did that" argument, but it is to find out why two people who may be regarded as professionals in their field are having such a time on Wikipedia, and the best way to solve the issue. You both strike me as very intelligent people, and from what I read, prominent in your professions. I only hope that we can prove the former to be correct, and save the latter from suffering any undo damage as a result of this squabble. CascadiaTALK | HISTORY 21:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pleasantville 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Cascadia, You will have my response by closed of business on Saturday if not before. Emergency dictates. Thank you for your patience. christine dolan february 8, 2007


 * Not a problem, Christine. Sometimes life happens. Hope all goes well with the emergency situation, details notwithstanding. CascadiaTALK | HISTORY 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia - I need to ask you for more patience here because of personal matters. Thought I could get this to you by today and it looks like Sunday or Monday because of family emergency matters! It is on its way though. Thanks! christine dolan saturday february 10, 2007 3:40pm


 * Certain things take priority. Wikipedia should always be low on the totem pole. Hope all goes well. CascadiaTALK <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">| <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">HISTORY 20:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe ample time has been given for Ms. Dolan to respond, yet she has not done so. Expect my final response within the next 12 hours, most likely by 10:00 AM MST. Cascadia<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">TALK <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">| <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">HISTORY 12:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Resolution Recommendation
Although Ms. Dolan has not yet posted her argument, I feel enough time has passed that delaying my response would make a recommendation a moot point. These recomendations are written as I see it. I have done additional research from what is availble here, but I feel the responses posted so far paint an accurate picture. Please keep in mind that I'm only making recomendations as a third party looking in on the situation. Take them for what they are worth. Please also remember this is not an official dispute resolution sanctioned by Wikipedia, instead the recommendations of someone who answered a call for help and found that it was only the tip of the iceburg. These recommendations are a common-sense approach, and if implemented, should prevent further escallation, however, again, they are only recommendations.

I have looked at both of your arguments, past issues, examples that have been posted, and additonal research outside of Wikipedia. I feel that this research, although not giving me 20/20 vision as far as this matter, does provide some insight into the situation.

Recommendation for Ms. Dolan Ms. Dolan, from the research I've done you appear to be a fairly prominent person. As such, I would remind you that all actions that you take reflect upon not only yourself, but any projects or organizations to which you are party to. These organizations have conduct very important work, and your work with them is very important as well. With that in mind, I would encourage you to read up on how Wikipedia operates, and consider registering.

Also, your reply that sparked this offer for dispute resolution quoted arguments from the talk page of an article. While I might agree that Pleasantville was out of line in her comment, it is not against Wikipedia policy to post such messages on a talk page, as those types of posts will be either downplayed or dealt with on the page. As long as Kathryn is not making such edits to the main article namespace, she is entitled to her opinion and insight, even to your distaste. Making disruptive edits based on a comment on a talk page is not a way to win support for your argument. If you do have an issue with Pleasantville, I do suggest creating a profile on Wikipedia to better foster communication, and seeking out the appropriate Wikipedia policy noticeboard. A good place to start is the Help Page. Any issues outside of edits on Wikipedia should be kept off of Wikipedia.

Although as a Wikipedia user, it is not my place to legislate policy, I would caution you on further attempts to write rebuttals or similar posts, as another editor could very well nominate your IP(s) for blocking if they deem your edits to be overtly disruptive. Also, here are some articles you may find helpful: WP:AGF and WP:POL. Lastly, I would also recommend that you try to stay away from Pleasantville, and not actively seek out her contributions. Sometimes the best thing to do is just leave well enough alone.

Ms. Dolan, please be aware I am not taking your concerns lightly. You do have some valid points and issues. However, there is a proper way to address those concerns. Writing lengthy letters where it is not appropriate to do so is not that way. We welcome you to Wikipedia if you have any contributions you would like to add. Cascadia<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">TALK <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">| <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">HISTORY 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation for Pleasantville Pleasantville, you’re edits to Wikipedia have been quite helpful. You seem to have an interest into being part of the Wikipedia community. I for one welcome your insight into the realm of Science Fiction and your experience as a professional writer and editor.

First off, I would advise you to not bring personal matters on to Wikipedia, and to stay away from articles in which you have a conflict of interest unless you can “walk on glass” in making any changes (i.e. proposing them on the Talk page, etc.). I have personal experience with this, and trust me, it helps if you can try and stick so close to the policies that the most someone can do is simply call you names and claim you have no right editing the article. Articles where you have a conflict of interest, you may want to simply watch and monitor them, removing blatant vandalism when it crops up, but any changes, propose them on the talk page. If no one responds, consider it dead. That is the policy I use, and it tends to keep me out of trouble.

Although it may seem in relation to my previous recommendation, I have also noticed that you tend to not tread lightly. Your archive page is full of warnings from other editors regarding your actions on Wikipedia. Disruption is disruption, whether it be focused like Ms. Dolan, or spread out like yours. It is clear that you either have chosen not to take the advice of other editors or do not understand them. I implore you, please, read carefully all Wikipedia policies before continuing to edit. Otherwise, an editor in the future may take action to request that you be blocked for disruptive edits. You too should read WP:POL and WP:AGF.

When you discuss things, remember to keep it cool.

Pleasantville, it may seem to you that I and other editors are reading you the riot act, but we do have policies in place on Wikipedia for a reason. Furthermore, asking that you uphold those policies is not an attempt to attack you, but to make your edits to Wikipedia more fruitful and able to stay. On top of that, I personally make the recommendation because you’re real identity as a professional author has been made public in the past by yourself, and your bio is available here. Because of this, I would advice keeping cool and sticking as close to Wikipedia Policy as possible, as to keep any collateral damage to a minimum. Cascadia<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">TALK <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">| <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">HISTORY 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation Overall Overall, the impression I am giving is two-fold. A personal issue has been dragged on to Wikipedia for the entire world to see. This is unfortunate, because issues like this do not need to be made public, particularly on Wikipedia. Issues like this are best battled in private or at least outside of the realm of Wikipedia. On the flip side, there are policies enforce on wikipedia that are being ignored.

We welcome constructive edits that benefit Wikipedia on a whole, but disruptions of any kind are frowned upon. To keep from having other editors take actions beyond warnings and criticism, remember two things: “People in glass houses should not throw stones”, and “When dealing with things of a sensitive nature, remember to tread lightly as if you were walking on glass.”

I hope these recommendations will help both of you become active contributing members of Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time, should you need further assistance, feel free to ask. Cascadia<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">TALK <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">| <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">HISTORY 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia - While I appreciate your time and energy in this - the reason I did not post was because I was advised by those at the center of WP to hold off because of the severity of what has transpired and they are going to take a look at this behind closed doors I guess at what is considered "command central." My whole argument from the get go was that personal crusade initiating like Cramer's onto WP is wrong. It is not just against WP rules but against the very essence of WP - this is not supposed to be a tabloid encyclopedia. If it is - then state and move on, but the rules specifically state otherwise. My ONLY reason for even being on WP was because my associates and I were dragged over here by Cramer for her personal reasons. I did not start this publicly. Even my emails to her privately which she posted on her own website was used over here in her external links on Cafasso's bio which she created. I could have posted Cramer's email in which she admitted to having her credit card used for this man's stalking of another human being - not me - someone else in Feb 2006 well before I ever heard of these two individuals. Cross-referenceWP starting with January 21st bio on me; her autobio on January 25th; her creation of Cafasso's on January 24th; her edits in that which dragged my associates and me into Cafasso's bio - that is the simple route. Within that, she links my name to the WP bio on me which was based upon copyright and plagiarism. Fact. Not fiction. Charlie Black's name which she posted on Cafasso's bio was linked to another WP by the name of Charlie L. Black. Interesting at best - considering she also linked to her own web page at www.kathryncramer.com where she refers to him in the present tense yet the bio she linked his name to on the Cafasso bio was linked to a dead man who was born in 1915 and deceased in 2001.

The bottom line is that this is a classic case of abusing and misuing WP for personal promotion and gain to harm others and it is totally related to substance and content and how that substance and content is used for personal gain and/or self-promotion. One editor over at Mark Berstein's thread asked why I was so upset when my bio was removed. Real simple because my associates and I were used by Cramer for her personal crusade against this man on WP and those edits although redacted by WP as they should be are still up at WP. Cramer stated in an October 2006 email that she was going to write an article on Cafasso. Well, she did and she used WP to do it however skewed, however personal, however invasive and however inaccurate. Damn near nothing she wrote on Cafasso would pass a newsroom test and it hardly passed WP standards but it is still up at WP and it was premeditated and her email proves it. We got used by Cramer and so did WP. This is so obvious it reeks of violations across the board on almost every aspect of bios - notability, neutrality, conflict of interest, factual and verifiability. I caught it. I pointed it out. Granted, I did not use the proper method becuase I did not even know how to complain to WP so my edits look like a jumping jack rabbit. This exercise involves clear violations of standards involving living bios, deceased bios, corporate smear, glaring inaccuracies, skewed assumptions, promoting FBI investigation which were initiated by Cramer against Cafasso which resulted in no prosecutions but when stated - a stranger would assume otherwise. We call that SPIN. Even to the point of writing I "met" Cafasso in 1998. Sorry - I was on a dais for a conference on media. The host of the conference was AIM. The AIM "newsletter" in which Cafasso's name and mine are mentioned and referenced by Cramer is not even put in the right context. AIM and Cafasso and his gang were then involved in covering TWA 800 which I never covered as a newstory. If everyone who asked me a question during a Q & A session of any lecture I have ever given or symposium or conference I have participated in over the course of decades is defined as someone I "met" - well then that is like someone asking me directions on a street corner becuase I happen to pass by! That is not "meeting" someone. There are serious crimes involved in what happened this past year. There are a number of people whom I am associated with who were hurt financially because of what Cafasso and Cramer were involved in - well beyond what happened to me. Furthermore, I am not part of the Idema camp. I knew nothing about that story even then other than some people led a cabal against Idema, another journalist, Ed Caraballo, and Brett Brentwood. When I ripped off the mask of Cafasso's fake persona because I was victimized my reaction was one of a victim and also a journalist - and my standard is very simple. When a source of a story - as Cramer and Cafasso - pretend to be about Idema - with others - have lied continually and viscerally - that entire news story - no matter how unsavory or controversial the characters are - must be re-examined from top to bottom. This is not like Cafasso and Cramer just jumped into this. Cramer was posting and tag posting on her own website simultaneously as Cafasso was posting on his insidious and violent website. More than that was involved including payment for Cafasso to physically stalk someone across state lines. Cramer's descriptions of that in an October 2006 email evidences that.

It is irrelevant whether I have edited at WP before or after now. The policy on living bios, mentioning living people in deceased bios or other bios stands firm at WP. I have read your standards and there is a history of slopping edits on living bios which even WP has acknowledged and attempting to address within WP community. I note even some edits that were redacted on your own edits. Having said that - since I am in the news business I know only too well the skewing of facts and there is no way anyone who is going through a breakup of a relationship on any level like Cafasso and Cramer are - would pass THIS test of neutrality and no conflict of interest in any newsroom.

That was my entire point of this sordid posting - it ought to be rock solid standard operating procedure that no one can use WP for any personal gain or defame or use of others to engage in their game! WP allowed this and my recommendation to Florida is to remove all of this and watch Cramer on this issue and for those bios you still have up - get the story right becuase so far - hers is not right in relationship to Cafasso's which she posted and Idema's is off on the facts as well! Either do it consistenty or shut them all down! Furthermore - if you look at the actions taken on this response you will see another pattern here as well - she is projecting that my reaction is personal. Sorry, that does not crawl, walk, leap or jump. She invoked us into her personal crusade. She also raised the question why I would not want our victimization written by her - because none of us believe her victimization and we know what she is up to and has done in concert with Cafasso. Many witnessed her complicity and association with Cafasso's game as his partner. She admits to meeting him in November 2005. ALthough many of her threads on her own website have been removed which evidence her tag posting attacks against Idema, Caraballo, Lynn Thomas - well before my associates and I ever heard their names - the evidence has been collected and was passed onto authorities well before Cafasso was publicly outed. We are not a bunch of country bumpkins. The evidence was collected even though Cramer has viscerally attempted to revise her association and her history in Cafasso and others' game of going after Idema! I never "suffered" a conversion as Cramer writes. There was no conversion. I was not part of that story and did not cover it and did not even know the facts. The FBI filled in some blanks and there are a team of journalists who filled the rest!

As I say - all of this is being handled a wee bit higher than this page and I have no doubt that it will be addressed at a higher level but thanks for your notes and recommendation and sorry - nothing I do on these pages affects anything we do - sorry - we know how to do investigations, but thanks, anyway - Cascadia or do I call you Avatar! I am certain that some action will be forthcoming from WP Center! Again, thanks for the time and energy. None of this should have come to pass because it never should have been brought over to WP! This was an abuse of WP for personal gain by Cramer. She wrote that she was going to write an article on Cafasso in October and she did on WP! You people who work at WP should be more upset than I am - obviously the crack in this is in the system you have on BIOS - dead and alive! Christine Dolan Feb 17, 2007.

Ms. Dolan may contine this conversation elsewhere. I requested via her attorney that she never contact me again. As I explained to him, posting to this talk page is a form of contact. Pleasantville 13:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that this has become a legal issue is sad, but I'll leave it at that. I hope that the Foundation's staff will assist both of you in coming to a resolution. Thank you both for allowing me the opportunity to at least attempt to assist in resolving this issue without further escallation, but I am happy to see that steps are taken to resolve this. Although typically I would at this point prefer to stay out of such litigation, if I can be of any assistance please let me know. Christine, should you need to reply further, you may do so via my talk page. To the both of you, the best of luck in resolving this issue. Cascadia<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">TALK <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">| <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">HISTORY 14:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Hacker-Delany
Pleasantville,

Do you think it's necessary to put her first name on the internet?

--Kdring 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Her full name is already on her mother's entry. She's an adult. Googling "Iva Hacker-Delany" yeilds 68 hits, some of which are her professional credentials; others involve her Internet posts. Pleasantville 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)