Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cla68

WP:RFC is a part of WP:DR
Getting feedback on one's editing isn't supposed to be a dispute, like I said on the page WP:ER is the better option. Anynobody 02:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe everything here in this RfC directly relates to editing. Much of it involves non-editing actions. CLA 03:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you might consider reposting on one of these: Requests for comment/Policies --or-- Requests for comment/Style issues. Seriously, WP:RFC/U is about user conduct disputes. Anynobody 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll consider it. Thank you for the suggestion. CLA 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I noticed that you put the RfC in the approved section, that's definitely not supposed to be the way a WP:RFC/U is approved. (An admin is supposed to approve it, which is why there is a pending area.) Anynobody 03:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up, a reviewing admin will probably delete this and cite this wikilink: Requests for comment. Anynobody 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please point to the appropriate page, policy, guideline, etc. that says that only ad admin can approve RFCs? I can't seem to find it.  Thanks!  --ElKevbo 05:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind ElKevbo, but I moved your comment to keep this page chronologically organized. To address your question, it actually doesn't say it anywhere (and it should) because WP:RFC/Us have to abide by a fairly strict set of rules the first one being (emphasis mine): Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. Only admins can delete pages, so when it talks about possibly being deleted in 48 hours if two editors don't attempt to make peace with the subject of the WP:RFC/U it means if the reviewing admin thinks the RFC is not warranted he/she will delete the proposal. Since a regular editor can't take the appropriate step of deleting an non-compliant RFC it's implied they should not be deciding what is/isn't compliant. Anynobody 06:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do mind you moving my comments; please don't do so again. Further, I don't see anything in there that states that an admin must approve an RFC.  I refuse to abrogate responsibilities to admins when it's unnecessary.  Surely we can find one to delete an unapproved RFC but that's just cleanup work.  --ElKevbo 06:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember, an RfC done on yourself doesn't require two involved editors. CLA 06:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't mention a self RFC under the WP:RFC/U requirements. If you don't believe me, you can ask on the talk page for the whole WP:RFC/U board: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Anynobody 06:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PS I just noticed this question there: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment Anynobody 06:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo sorry to offend you, it was unintentional. As I said if you don't believe me ask an admin or two by posting on the main talk page or WP:ANI. Anynobody 06:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, no problem. I was under attack by another editor elsewhere so I was a bit too eager to snap at someone else.  Please accept my apologies for being ill-tempered!  --ElKevbo 07:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, we all have bad days. Anynobody 09:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment
I have moved this RfC to the approved section. There are clear precedents for editors starting RfC about themselves to resolve dispute or perceived criticism of their conduct. For example: Requests for comment/Doc glasgow and Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 3. The certification requirement is a safeguard against vexatious RfCs which I think the subject is free to waive. The fact that there has already been a significant level of participation in this RfC demonstrates that it is playing a valid role. It should not be deleted. WjBscribe 07:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the nature of the situation,That Cla68 inappropriately nominated a biography of a living person (BLP) for deletion, linked to an attack site during the deletion debate and a subsequent request for adminship (RfA), posted comments on Wikipedia Review, re-added deleted material, supported the actions of banned user WordBomb, and lives in the same state as WordBomb. Could you please explain why this should not be moved to WP:ER? If Cla68 was just asking about the propriety of nominated a biography of a living person (BLP) for deletion I could see where it would be applicable to Requests for comment/Policies. The editor is asking about their editing behavior, (WP:BLP, WP:EL, WP:3RR, etc.) There are reasons why WP:ER exists and this is one of them, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. The idea of both pages is the same, providing feedback on editor behavior... WP:RFC/U is for those who aren't open to it as part of dispute resolution and editor review is for those who do want feedback. Later when Cla68 refers to their WP:RFC/U editors who know better are going to assume a negative connotation. Think of it as the difference between college and prison (college being the er and prison being the rfc).

-- compared to -- It's up to you (you being anyone interested) to correct this if you want. Wikipedia will go on either way, it's just that it sounds like a comedy of errors in the making and I wanted to see if I could prevent it. (P.S. Just look at the other active WP:RFC/Us and WP:ERs to get an idea what I mean.) Anynobody 10:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "During my recent prison term I learned about my weaknesses..."
 * "During my last few semesters at college I learned about my weaknesses..."


 * Frankly I'm not sure why you think WP:ER would be a better venue. Cla68 does not want his skills as an editor reviewed. As I understand it, he wishes to address the opinions of his conduct that lead to the failure of his RfA. I think you mischaracterise the difference between the 2 forums and in any event I believe it is appropriate for Cla68 to choose the one his thinks fits. Given the response to this RfC so far, it appears that it is felt to be an appropriate venue. WjBscribe 12:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside question
I have now gained some overview as to what has happened. I still don't know why. Reading the articles on Gary Weiss and Patrick M. Byrne didn't really help, either, since the background of the controversy isn't really explained. Could anyone let me in on the details of that? I believe it's important - for myself at least - to be able to judge the whole situation accurately. —AldeBaer 10:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * At least some of the alleged "facts" in the situation can only be found on the banned "Attack Sites", and anybody who even tries to bring them up around here is likely to get banned too... kind of squelches any attempt to get to the bottom of the whole thing. I still haven't got a clue what's really going on, but there does seem to be a big, tight bundle of personages, on and off wiki, that are enmeshed in a tangled web of connections of some sort.  Personally, I don't have any desire to "out" anybody's real-life identity, or facilitate real-world harrassment, or anything like that... but any attempt to determine if conflicts of interest exist is bound to step on somebody's toes and be perceived as "trolling" or "stalking" or some such thing.  It's a mess.  A few users seem to have set themselves up as "untouchables" on Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ?? Um... I was talking about Gary Weiss and Patrick M. Byrne... —AldeBaer 22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * An article on the issue has recently been published in The Register . Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Procedure
In case there's still doubt about this, administrator approval is not required in any fashion for a self-RfC; by convention a self-RfC meets the two-person threshold automatically and can be listed. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to SlimVirgin summary
Response by Cla68
 * I appreciate your response, SlimVirgin, since you appeared to have the most concerns raised in my RfA about my conduct in this dispute. I'll respond to the points you made below:
 * Restored WordBomb's warning to Matanmoreland's talk page: At that time, I thought the policy was that users couldn't delete warnings from their talk page and I also didn't know the warning was from a banned user.  Once I knew better I didn't restore it again.
 * AfD of Weiss article: I've already explained why I did that above and explained that I realize now that I should have taken a different approach to dealing with what I believed to be COI with the article.
 * Lack of references in Weiss article: Perhaps I don't understand the policy, but, I've always been under the impression that uncited text in any article is subject to deletion, because it's unverifiable, especially in BLP.  If I'm wrong on that point, then I'm wrong, and I stand corrected.
 * Repeating WordBomb's "High Administrator" comment: I'll repeat it again, I was being facetious with that comment.
 * Restored WordBomb's "outing" comments: I truly didn't know that you couldn't restore those types of comments.  Although I had been editing on Wikipedia for about 10 months, I had concentrated on writing articles and nominating them for Featured Article (FA) (I think I had successfully nominated about nine articles for FA at that point) and hadn't been involved much in policy or administrative issues.  As I've pointed out myself, I made some mistakes in the Weiss affair and have learned some lessons the very hard way.  Restoring "outing" comments is something that I haven't done since then.
 * Restored Morkai's comment: I didn't know that Morkadi's comments were from a banned user. I also didn't know why they were deleted.  After I restored them then I was told why they were deleted and I didn't restore them again.
 * Linked to attack site during my RfA: Yes, I linked to that site during the RfA.  I thought that we needed to debate as to whether it was an attack site or not, and the only way to do that is to look at it.  I also thought linking meant hyperlinking but that it was ok to name the website.  Someone explained to me that linking also means naming the site in plain text.  I understand that there appears to be some custom in the community to avoid linking to certain websites, but it also appears that there isn't a firm policy on the issue.  Hopefully, one will be forthcoming soon.
 * Responses to this RfC have been solicited on a website that WordBomb frequents soliciting input to this RfC: I haven't solicited anyone off Wikipedia to participate in this discussion and I don't know what SlimVirgin is talking about.  I would like SlimVirgin to email the link to me, even though she only offered to email it to admins.

Again, I appreciate SlimVirgin's response to this RfC and I hope that full discussion of the dispute will lead to putting it behind all of us so we can move forward. CLA 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cla, I moved this here because if we allow threaded responses in all the sections, we'll have chaos (see the RfC guidelines). You could perhaps repost it in your own section if you want it on that page. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, another self-RfC has threaded comments and many, if not most of the participants/commentators in that RfC are admins and apparently didn't have a problem with that. CLA 01:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You say above that you didn't know "outing" posts shouldn't be restored. Surely that's a matter of common sense, and not something you'd need to be told? Also, you write that you haven't restored any "outing" posts since the one I mentioned. But you've several times since then posted and restored links to a site that engages in outing. There's not a huge difference between doing it yourself and directing people to a site where someone else is doing it.


 * What I notice repeatedly about your posts is that you tend to offer very partial information: "I only did X once," while failing to mention that you did Y a dozen times, and that X and Y are very similar. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the goal of this RfC, to get the full story out in the open where anyone interested in the issue can read about it, ask questions if they want to, and make any comments they feel are appropriate. Again, I appreciate your comments that are helping to accomplish that goal. CLA 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the goal of this RfC, you could have posted the relevant diffs yourself, but you didn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weren't they already included in my RfA? If not, I appreciate you taking the time to find them and post them.  Anyway, would you please email me the link to the off-wiki message board where people are soliciting input to this RfC?  I'd like to see it.  Why did you only offer to email it to admins? CLA 23:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I've apologized for some of my earlier tone, I haven't backed down on my position on "linking to attack sites", as stated in my essay. A case where a debate is proceeding that directly involves matters relating to those sites, as did his RfA and this RfC, is a perfect example of a place where it's useful to have the actual links so that people don't have to take on hearsay and others' opinions just what is actually there. *Dan T.* 00:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, Cla68 asked the Signpost to write an article about him and his alleged comparison to Gracenotes, omitting entirely that the problem was his help for WordBomb, and that linking to WordBomb's website was only a tiny part of it. This is not the way an editor who's trying to learn from past mistakes would behave. I'm not going to post here again unless there's something that badly needs correcting, because I don't want to feed this situation any further. SlimVirgin (talk)  00:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This dispute indirectly ties into several other significant events occurring in the community, including the Gracenotes RfA. I believe a mention of that in the Signpost is appropriate.  We should have open discourse throughout this project such as is taking place in this RfC. CLA 00:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, in seeking broad community comment on this issue, I posted a notification of it on WP:AN (Administrators Noticeboard) . SlimVirgin deleted the notification six minutes later . CLA 05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dan, wikipedia should not condone linking to any non WP:RS site anywhere - isn't by definition that source unreliable? That said, if SV claims to have evidence that CLA68 posts on WR at all, not even to mention in support of "attacking" wikipedians, that person should email any such evidence to interested parties including CLA68 himself. Catch-22 unprovable innuendo should not be tolerated on wikipedia to ban your perceived enemies (which I have experienced as well as CLA). Signed, not wordbomb or any of the dozens of IP's that were banned from around the USA for being wordbomb (checkuser my IP please), the singular and independent Piperdown 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the RS policy applies only to links in articles themselves... how is anybody supposed to determine the reliability of a source, in discussion on talk and project pages, if they can't see it? *Dan T.* 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, when a link is posted, if any editor decides that link doesn't meet WP:RS, it could be quickly deleted and an explanation of why that removed link didn't meet WP:RS could be cited on the talk page of the editor. How non-WP:RS could be allowed on talk pages but not on articles in non-BLP instances but not in BLP cases is a open loophole that has opened up a unnecessary crisis in the first place. If an editor posts the same link again after being properly warned, then ban them. Don't follow the ones who comply around for the rest of their wikipedia careers like Cla68 is being done, and prevent one of the better and more level-headed editors I've seen yet from advancing in the ranks, not matter what WP:COI's he's witnessed IP and personal letter proof of on off-wiki sites by googling. Wikipedians aren't (or shouldn't be) children who should be eternally punished for staying up late to watch naughty movies on cable.Piperdown 01:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk pages, though, aren't part of the article proper but are discussion among editors about what to do with the article, discussion that is in general carried on in a spirit of openness. Suppressing information is rarely a good idea there. *Dan T.* 01:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that one of Slim's reasons for distrusting Cla is that he "is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to any troublemaker, no matter how much disruption that person has caused"; in other words, I guess "assuming good faith" is wrong if you assume it of the wrong people. I, for one, try (though don't always succeed) to show as much good faith as I can about everybody... that includes those who are labeled "trolls" or "troublemakers" or who are involved in "attack sites". While, obviously, somebody with an anti-Wikipedia position doesn't have "good faith" in the Wikipedian sense of desiring to improve Wikipedia, I still like to think that they're not Saturday-morning TV villains, waking up in the morning vowing to do evil while cackling all the way. Rather, I like to think that they have some motive that, in their own minds, justifies the things they do and the positions they take, and perhaps something constructive can be achieved by trying to understand it, rather than just vilifying them. This doesn't mean one shouldn't oppose them if one thinks what they're doing is harmful, but it might mean that there are better ways to oppose them than to just say they're evil and demand that everybody shun them in all contexts. *Dan T.* 01:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cla68's bad faith
I wonder why some keep saying that Cla68 acted in bad faith when he opened this RfC. Allegations like that he's "trying to whitewash the events and his behavior" seem somewhat farfetched, seeing as he invited a wide variety of possibly interested users to comment and ask questions. This RfC may be a waste of time, but anyone who assumes bad faith on Cla68's part effectively proves that notion wrong. He invited us, and we followed that invitation, now let's not kick him for that. —AldeBaer 01:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Assume bad faith *Dan T.* 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith. And also WP:CIVIL and most of all WP:VAND. What's the name of this game? —AldeBaer 02:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly Nomic. *Dan T.* 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should point out that the second person I notified of the opening of the RfC was SlimVirgin, as she was the primary editor in raising the concerns during my RfA. I also notified every single editor who opposed or raised concerns during my RfA, hoping to get their input.  Forty-eight hours passed without a comment from any of them, but fortunately, they have decided to join in the discussion since that time. CLA 03:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cavalry and Calvary
Regarding a recent edit over in the RfC page... a cavalry is an armed regiment on horseback, and Calvary is where Jesus was crucified. Calgary is a city in Alberta, Canada, but that has nothing to do with anything here. *Dan T.* 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, do you have a link? CLA 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind, I see it. CLA 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet both metaphors seem appropriate, ha ha ha! Cla went to Calvary, but without a cavalry. Curiously, the title of recently departed American Indian activist Vine Deloria's first book of essays (published in 1969) was "Custer Died for Your Sins." From an anthropological pov, Cla's RFA follows a similar pattern, that of the victim whose sacrifice saves humanity (or Wikipedia!) You're "the One" Cla!—AL FOCUS! 04:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and Other Red Herrings Used to Flog Cla68 on this RfC
A Noble warrior against sockpuppetry by some but not others posted this on the main page: "On October 27, 2006, WordBomb as User:70.218.97.149"

Now I'm no NSA expert, but a tracert to that IP shows it's in New Jersey, and according to Mantanmoreland's user page, Wordbomb (who posted for a day in July, yet appears to have left a big impression on an admin here) has been a resident of Utah since at least last Sept 2006 according to google searches of his LinkedIn page, the mention of his hiring by Overstock.com to work at their main offices, and according to previous biographichal information on a company site that he ran that interviews CEO's. So I'm really curious how SlimVirgin, and whoever else with "checkuser" status, decides that IP's that post from around the world, and the above from New Jersey, are "Wordbomb", or JB as Mantamoreland's kindler gentler userbox likes to call him now. Anyone? Have some fun and look at the page of wordbomb socks (I did after I was run up for a RFCU without being told about it, emailed "jpgordon" about with it no response, and happened to notice IP's that would mean JB must have powers beyond time and space to exert his dominance of all things Weiss and Byrne and the wikipedians who know or knew them. Then Cla68 is asked for diffs that the persons asking them for said they deleted to protect a BLP. Catch-22 anyone? Piperdown 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we have always been at war with Eastasia. --MichaelLinnear 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, that diff above, where Mantanmoreland named his alleged stalker in a userbox (and then edit-warred to try to keep it in), isn't he violating the policy and principle against "outing" the real-life identities of Wikipedia participants? *Dan T.* 12:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported claims
One of the problems that besets all of this is the way in which it seems to have become acceptable to make claims about other people without evidence, when that evidence is readily available and easily cited. Let's go to the diff: "It's worth noting for future reference that, who added his endorsement today of Cla68's summary, is a close ally of WordBomb on another website. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"

Well, says who? If there is "another website", it needs to be named. If there is matter on that website (and one would hope that there bloody well is), it needs a citation. What burns me up the most about the "attack sites" discussion is the way in which the supposed ban on links and references is used to evade the need to back up these attacks. And when another is accused of bad faith, Assume good faith has already been voided.

Making this sort of assertion about the behavior of another editor, without proof, is a personal attack. It's about time they stopped. Mangoe 18:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mangoe, please stop the long speeches about attack sites; this has nothing to do with that. The evidence can't be made public because it involves the real name of someone who hasn't chosen to reveal his identity on Wikipedia. I'm willing to e-mail it to any admin who's known to me and who asks to see it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hardly a long speech when it's shorter than the Gettysburg Address! And anyway, it has everything to do with that. How do you know who anyone's real name is? And if you do, does that not already violate their anonymity? Several times these sorts of allegation have already proven (by looking at the real sources) to be inaccurate or to have falsifying omissions. I don't accept the "I have presented it to another administrator" as good enough, not considering your level of involvement in the whole complex of issues of which this is just a part. For as we both know, the matter of Gary Weiss is not separate from that of the particular sites being identified as "attacking". Mangoe 18:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mangoe, your presumption of bad faith is staggering. I have absolutely no involvement in this situation; you're basing your ideas on the claims by an absurd website, and I can assure you that there is zero truth in them.


 * As to the issue at hand, I repeat that the evidence involves what I believe is the real name of an individual who has chosen not to name himself here, and I'm not about to out him for your benefit. I'm sorry that you feel administrators are untrustworthy. I disagree. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't expect you to out him. What I'd rather you did was quit making the accusations. Mangoe 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then I'm sorry that, once again, I have to disappoint you. :-) It's clearly relevant, in an RfC that discusses someone's apparent support for a notorious banned user, that one of the few endorsements of that persons' account comes from a close associate of the banned user. It's also appropriate to offer the evidence to admins by e-mail given that it involves what appears to be someone's real name. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How can there simultaneously be "zero truth" to the claims in the other site, and a claim on that site about the real name of an individual that you believe to be correct? These seem mutually contradictory. *Dan T.* 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the same website. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It can, as has been pointed out a number of times, be rather difficult to carry on a coherent discussion about what's being said on other sites without actually naming or linking to any of them. Confusion and misunderstandings are likely to result even if no intentional misdirection or misstatement is being done. *Dan T.* 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Guilt by association is manifestly bad faith. Everyone is entitled to keep some bad company; after all, I agreed with you on your BLP proposals. :) Seriously, you're promoting factionalism when you make these announcements. Mangoe 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it very difficult to follow the logic here. It's not OK to link to "attack sites," because those sites give biographical details of Wikipedians who wish to maintain their privacy.  But it is OK for editor A, who opposes editor B, to (i) float tantalizing suggestions of compromising biographical revelations regarding editor B posted on one of these attack sites, and (ii) promise to email exact links to interested parties?  I may be missing something, but this strikes me as nothing more than casuistry – casuistry of a rather baroque sort, no doubt, but not a jot less ethically specious for all its intricacy.--G-Dett 20:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem you all have is that you leap to conclusions based on bad faith, rather than just reading what I wrote. I did not say the material had been posted on an attack site; in fact, I've said explicitly it has nothing to do with attack sites. I said (three or four times) that it involves a real name, and that this is the reason, and the only reason, I am not posting it publicly. This is my last comment on the subject, because I'm just repeating myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to my post, these are distinctions without differences. You are offering to disclose biographical information about a Wikipedian in order to discredit his contribution to the present RfC.--G-Dett 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)