Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cla68

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I'll consider it.  Thank you for the suggestion. CLA 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: PS I just noticed this question there: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RfC on myself? Anynobody 06:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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 Wikipedia: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#RfC on myself?. 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).
* "During my recent prison term I learned about my weaknesses..."
-- compared to --
* "During my last few semesters at college I learned about my weaknesses..."
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:RFC]] is a part of [[WP:DR]] 

message: 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: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow and Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia: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#RfC on myself?. 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).
* "During my recent prison term I learned about my weaknesses..."
-- compared to --
* "During my last few semesters at college I learned about my weaknesses..."
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comment

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Procedure 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Assume bad faith *Dan T.* 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: Possibly Nomic. *Dan T.* 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cla68's bad faith 

message: 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)
replies: text: What are you talking about, do you have a link? CLA 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, never mind, I see it. CLA 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cavalry and Calvary 

message: 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)
replies: text: Unfortunately, we have always been at war with Eastasia. --MichaelLinnear 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry and Other Red Herrings Used to Flog Cla68 on this RfC