Talk:Cave Clan

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 - Alison ❤ 22:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Using my real name on the Cave Clan entry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rumours?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Access info

message: 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)
replies: text: I count three sources. For the time being, it's enough. SMC (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cave Clan activities 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cave Clan sites

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Ah okay, understood. SMC (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Brisbane site? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Location Discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:   Advertising? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Alright, fair enough. Welcome aboard :) SMC (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Photography 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cave Clan Investigation