Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cla68

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.

Desired outcome

Fully document and discuss what took place in case any issues or questions arise later regarding Cla68’s participation in this dispute.

Description

Much of the material related to this controversy has been deleted, but I’ll try to reconstruct the events as best I can…

Around the middle of October, 2006, based on some information I read on Criticism of Wikipedia I was eventually led to a website that appeared to highlight abuses of the Internet by certain individuals, usually, according to the website, for personal gain. The website stated that the Gary Weiss article in Wikipedia was controlled by POV pushers and explained how they were controlling the article and giving some examples. The website contained very persuasive, verifiable evidence of COI with the article including IP addresses. The website's name was AntiSocialMedia.net (ASM).

I went to the Gary Weiss article and it appeared to match the description from ASM that it was being used for POV promotion of the subject. I found some somewhat non-flattering information about Weiss in a credible secondary source (BusinessWeek) and added it with an inline citation to the article. Within minutes it was reverted by one of the editors mentioned in the off-wiki site. A confrontational debate broke out over the article’s content on the article’s talk page between me and that editor, just as ASM predicted would happen. This appeared to confirm to me that a COI was taking place in the article, based on: (1) outside evidence from ASM, (2) the fact that much of the material in the article, at that time, was from the article subject’s blog, and (3) the edit history by the two “defenders” of that article especially in that any non-flattering information added to the article, even from credible sources, was swiftly deleted.

I checked the articles for deletion (AfD) criteria and found that COI was a valid criteria for deletion (although some participants in the resulting discussion disagreed). At that time, the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page had a table that I thought listed COI as a valid reason for a deletion nomination [1]. Thus, on October 30, 2006, I nominated the article for deletion. The resulting AfD discussion has since been deleted by Jimbo Wales, discussed here: [2] In my nomination I gave the three reasons listed above for why I thought the Weiss article contained COI and included a link to the off-site evidence, which, at that time, I didn’t know was against policy to do. User:Quadell removed the link and explained the policy to me. Although the AfD discussion was deleted, if you want to read it ask me below or email me and I’ll email you a link to where a copy of it is archived.

Needless to say, the AfD result was ‘’Keep’’. Most of the respondents stated that the subject was notable. I tried to remind them that I wasn’t nominating based on the issue of notability, but on COI as stated in the AfD criteria at that time. Once the AfD closed, me and a few other editors went to work on the Weiss article, although the discussion got heated at times the article was made fairly neutral, but without much text because of unresolvable disagreements over “undue weight” ([3]) concerns. The resulting article has remained more or less as is until recently. Most of the original discussion on the Weiss talk page was deleted shortly thereafter.

Based on the discussions that took place during the Weiss AfD and article clean-up, I still thought that at least two of the involved editors were actually the same person. I brought this issue up again during some discussion on the administrators incidents noticeboard (WP:ANI) [4]. At that time SlimVirgin assured me that no sockpuppetry was taking place so I apologized to the two editors and thought that the issue was closed.

The issue, however, was raised again by SlimVirgin during my RfA on April 5, 2007. Her concern, shared by some others, was that I had linked to an attack site, had supported WordBomb with my actions, had inappropriately nominated the Weiss article for deletion, had re-added deleted material, had posted on Wikipedia Review, and lived in the same state as WordBomb. CLA 05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

Like I said before, much of what occurred was subsequently deleted. The diffs or links to my disputed behavior that are still available I’ve either included above, or are included in my RfA. CLA 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:COI
2. WP:POINT
3. WP:NPA
4. WP:OWN
5. WP:SOCK
6. WP:NOT
7. WP:BLP
8. WP:NPOV
9. WP:V
10. WP:DP
11. WP:OVER
12. WP:DR

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Listed in the “response” section below.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Cla68 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)I opened this RfC on myself, and therefore no other certifications are necessary.[reply]

• Seems fair, it's worth addressing this, but it does not seem to be getting a lot of attention right now. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

1. I've followed this argument on-and-off over the last year and agree with Cla68's summary. He is a stand-up editor and what happened here unfortunately shows what happens when you stand up to certain people and their pet projects. I truly hope this will change as it abuses credibility of a project that countless well-meaning editors have built up over time.--QuiTacetConsentiret 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll discuss the community members’ concerns as I understand them, with any corrective action or hindsight on my part that may be appropriate.

1. Link to an attack site: At that time, I didn’t know that it was against policy to link to certain websites unless they were trying to sell something. After I was so informed, I didn’t link to or mention the site in question again until it came up as an issue in my RfA. Since there arose debate in my RfA as to whether ASM constituted an attack site or not, I tried to mention the site in the RfA so that we could debate that issue, but the name was always quickly deleted. The debate over whether it’s okay to link to certain websites in Wikipedia continues and is currently unresolved, but has been discussed here, here, here, and here. I’ve participated to some degree in this debate. I understand some in the community’s concerns over this matter and am awaiting resolution on the issue which I hope will be forthcoming soon.

I’ve come to find out recently that the site in question (ASM) in this issue is actually operated by Judd Bagley, an employee of a company (Overstock.com) that is involved in a dispute with Gary Weiss. Two credible, secondary sources confirmed this: [5] (New York Post) and [6] (New York Times). That information, however, wasn’t available back in October when I first got involved. It was revealed in January of this year and I didn’t hear about it until my RfA, as I wasn’t following the story anymore.

2. My actions supported WordBomb’s agenda: When I first became involved with the Weiss article, I’d never heard of WordBomb. As the debate over the article intensified, I started seeing WordBomb’s name mentioned, but had no idea why. I was told that an anonymous user that I conversed with during that time was WordBomb, who, from what I understand, is a banned user that some editors have particularly intense, negative feelings for. Fred Bauder has since explained to me the history behind the WordBomb incident, so I now understand where the concerns over support for WordBomb’s agenda are coming from. It was also mentioned during my RfA that the off-wiki site I linked to was operated by WordBomb. If so, it didn’t say that anywhere on the site or anywhere else on the Internet, including in Wikipedia, as far as I could see, that someone named WordBomb was operating the site.

I’ll state it clearly here. I don’t have any interest in whatever WordBomb’s agenda was on Wikipedia. I was only trying to correct problems with the Gary Weiss article. The Gary Weiss article did have some serious POV issues which I helped correct.

3. I inappropriately nominated the Weiss article for deletion: As I explained before, I thought I was within the policy guidelines for what I did and I was just being BOLD. Since that time, I’ve come to understand that a different approach was probably more appropriate.

What I should have done was to first discuss my COI concerns with those two editors about the Weiss articles, either on their talk pages or by email. If not satisfied by their responses, then I should have taken it to one of the noticeboards. The COI noticeboard (WP:COIN) had recently begun operations at that time. On that noticeboard, I could have presented my evidence of what I thought to be COI without as much disruption to the project as the AfD caused. Lesson learned.

4. Re-added deleted material: The offending material itself is deleted so I can’t reference it. I don’t remember what it was that I re-added. After SlimVirgin explained what was going on (the diff is in my RfA), I stopped.

5. Posted on Wikipedia Review (WR): I don’t have an account on WR and have never had an account on that website. SlimVirgin didn’t mention the useraccount name on WR that she believes is me so I don’t know who or what she is talking about.

6. I live in the same state as WordBomb: I assume this refers to a state in the United States, but the accusation doesn't actually mention the name of the state, so I can't be sure. First of all, I don’t understand why the state I might be living in should mean anything. Anyway, I’ve lived in Japan since September, 2006.

I’ve learned several hard lessons during this dispute. I understand some in the community’s concerns and I hope by fully explaining what happened and why and answering any of your questions or concerns that we can put this in the past. CLA 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. This seems to be fairly straightforward, and as the only real purpose of this RfC is to document this issue, I think CLA has done a decent job of it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sounds familiar. Piperdown 19:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Of course. —AldeBaer 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
5. In my opinion, Cla68 has made a significant, positive contribution to Wikipedia. This whole controversy took me by surprise; I can't help thinking that it was simply bad luck that things spun out of control.
   —wwoods 06:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 13:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. What wwoods said. I would like to acknowledge the impressive contributions that both CLA and SlimVirgin have made to Wikipedia. This whole sorry tale goes to show how human we all are and underlines the importance and necessity of assuming good faith, unless the exercise of bad faith can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. Grant | Talk 14:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. *Dan T.* 03:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I wrote a response to SlimVirgin's summary below on the talk page [7]. CLA 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

More documentation on the Bagley, ASM, Overstock.com, Weiss, and Wikipedia controversy has been published recently and is contained in this [8] article by The Register. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008

Mantanmoreland, an editor related to this issue and who SlimVirgin was apparently defending when I first became involved, was just community banned for repeated sockpuppeting [9] [10]. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2011

A number of items related to this issue have arisen over the past four years. I'll summarize them below.

Mantanmoreland and his socks

• As stated above, Mantanmoreland (the person) was indefinitely community banned from Wikipedia, as well as from editing Naked Short Selling, Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, and Overstock.com. I believe Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation has since been added to that list. Although it has not been definitively concluded that Gary Weiss was Mantanmoreland, The Register article linked to above suggests that Weiss may have been trying to use Wikipedia in a campaign to promote naked short selling and to defame Patrick Byrne and Overstock.com as well as promote himself via the Gary Weiss BLP. More details here.

• Since that time, Mantanmoreland has attempted to continue editing Wikipedia using numerous sock accounts, including: Bassettcat, AmishPete, JohnnyB256, Lastexit, MajorStovall, Samiharris, Stetsonharry, Tomstoner, and, perhaps, Copyedeye. See also here, here, and here.

• Several of these socks were discovered in December 2009 and January 2010. They were discovered in large part because of my efforts. I had noticed that it appeared that at least one possible account of Mantanmoreland was active. To draw him out I wrote and posted this article (link to AfD discussion). It worked, revealing more sock accounts than I had expected.

• Also as a result, the material from Business Week about Julian Robertson which I had attempted in 2006 to introduce to the Gary Weiss article [11] but was reverted by Mantanmoreland is now in that article.

"Attack sites" debate

• The attempt by a number of editors, as exemplified by some of the comments from SlimVirgin and others on this page, to ban the even mention of certain websites from Wikipedia and sanction editors who mentioned or linked to them, was rejected by the community. The failed policy proposal is here. To view the history of the proposal I suggest reading the talk page, including the extensive archives.

• SlimVirgin, at a later time, even obtained an account at and posted comments on Wikipedia Review, although she does not appear to be currently active.

Administrator irregularities

• Since the time of the original posting of this RfC, it has come to light that a number of administrators were attempting to manipulate article content, secretly direct investigations and blocks of editors, and blacklist other editors and administrators they disapproved of, using secret, invitation-only email mailing lists. Mantanmoreland and Samiharris were members (at the same time!) of at least one of these lists, called the Cyberstalking mailing list. SlimVirgin was the moderator, leader, and organizer of this list, although it is unknown if she knew at the time that the same person, possibly Weiss, was behind the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts. I believe she has denied knowing. It appears that this list, or one or more that preceeded it, was active, with participation by Mantanmoreland, at the time of my RfA and the posting of this RfC. Jimbo Wales was also a member of the Cyberstalking list.

• Looking at my RfA, it appears that two mailing lists were used to notify editors to pile-in and oppose my candidacy at the last minute, one list for admins and one list for other editors. Of course, not all the editors who opposed were notified by email and I can only guess at which ones were. I have been told that members of those lists were sworn to secrecy, which may be why few former members of the lists will talk about them. Some emails, however, have leaked from at least one of the lists in question.

• Jayjg, one of the endorsers of SlimVirgin's and FloNight's comments, was later stripped of many of his administrative privileges and topic banned for one year from the Israel/Palestine topic area for, at least in part, using email lists to try to manipulate article content. See here. Jayjg's topic ban was later lifted, a decision I supported, because he spent over a year away from the topic and did good work trying to help improve Wikipedia by participating in a noticeboard.

• More information on the block by David Gerard of the entire community in Utah, discussed in The Register article above, has emerged recently. It turns out that Gerard made the block then discussed with Jimbo Wales how to mislead a reporter who was investigating the incident [12]. Jimbo has always defended the block, in spite of the bad press it has brought Wikipedia, perhaps because he was the one who directed Gerard to do it. I and at least one other have asked Jimbo about it (though not if he was the one who directed the block): (check Jimbo's edit summary) [13]

WordBomb

• In spite of his allegations being mostly vindicated, WordBomb remains banned from Wikipedia, in large part, I think, because he has said that he does not, understandably, have a desire to edit Wikipedia. I think the reasoning that would probably be given as to why his indef block hasn't been overturned would be because of his sock accounts. The thing is, what was he supposed to do to get his message heard after he was unjustly blocked in the first place?

• For some time after WordBomb was indef blocked, anyone, not just me, who tried to defend WordBomb's allegations or attempts to get Wikipedia's administration to take some kind of action on his allegations, were villified. Now that it turns out that most of his allegations were true, Wikipedia's administration probably owes him an apology. I'm not holding my breath waiting for one to be issued.

Invitation to amend comments or endorsements

In light of the developments listed above, I have invited SlimVirgin [14], FloNight [15], JzG [16], Jayjg [17], Crum375 [18], MONGO [19], and Christofurio [20] to strike through through their comments or endorsements below or make further comments to this RfC. So far, none have elected to do so. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

One doesn't have to put any credence in the often-bizarre conspiracy theories in the Forbidden Sites (which postulate a really tangled web of interrelationships, alliances, enimities, grudges, and sock/meatpuppetry involving a number of personages both on Wikipedia and the "real world") to be concerned that there appears to be some WP:OWNing going on regarding certain articles of interest to certain prominent editors/admins here, and that anybody who gets in their way gets suppressed pretty badly; one needs only to follow some of the links to past Wikipedia diffs that were given on this page, and go exploring from there. User:SlimVirgin and User:Mantanmoreland, in particular, seem to be "Untouchables" on Wikipedia, whom nobody had better dare oppose or criticize for any reason. People who have taken them on have regularly found that their edits are labeled as "trolling", and they end up getting warned or banned. Anybody who comes along later with similar ideas gets labeled a "sock/meatpuppet of a banned user", and their comments summarily deleted from talk pages, and/or they receive stern warnings. Cla68 has been a victim of this, and see User:Ptmccain for an apparent example of this sort of thing proceeding all the way to a permanent ban. The User:Gracenotes RfA presently being debated by the bureaucrats is a case of the same faction attempting to scuttle a nominee for adminship because he didn't toe the proper line on the subject of "attack sites". *Dan T.* 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: It seems from this discussion that Cla68 made a foolish and unjustified accusation of sockpuppetry based on a misreading of other discussions; but Mantanmoreland's reaction to it was still way over the top and uncalled-for. Calling for a block on a user simply because he makes a charge of sockpuppetry (even one that proves incorrect) against a prominent user is out of line, especially given the fact that the accused in this case is quite free in making accusations of sockpuppetry against others. Is there to be a double standard where certain users are immune to being accused of anything, while others are fair game? So he was once trolled by User:WordBomb, an apparent single-purpose troll account that was swiftly banned... does that give him unlimited license to get all the mileage he can out of this by tarring all subsequent critics with the same brush? *Dan T.* 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. *Dan T.* 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. There does seem to be quite a bit of "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" double standard going on, especially concerning sock accusations.Frise 21:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Tell it like it is Dan. --MichaelLinnear 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Somewhat true, but a bit overheated phrasing, Dan. Abeg92contribs 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing really serious in the actions of CLA here. We can divide up the complaint into several sections:

1. Linking to an attack site - while it is indisputable that this occurred, and is generally frowned upon, I do not see any malicious or disruptive intent in this user's actions. It is not readily apparent that linking to "attack" sites in such a manner is not allowed, nor is it clear what constitutes an attack site under this definition. I find it perfectly reasonable that CLA was unaware that linking to such a site, in such a manner, was inappropriate. While this was a mistake, the user has expressed understanding that he made a mistake, explained why it happened, and asked for forgiveness. We cannot ask more of him on this account.
2. Supported the actions of WordBomb - again, I see nothing that could reasonably be construed to be disruptive in these edits. CLA appears to have been totally ignorant of the user's existence, or history. Although their ultimate goals may have had some overlap, it seems absurd to me to pillory a user for good faith attempts to correct a biased article because his edits align with the agenda of a banned user. Users are banned for disruption - and there is no evidence that CLA was being disruptive.
3. Inappropriate AfD - this is the most clear-cut to me. In the diff linked, it clearly shows that conflict of interest is a deletion criterion. It has since been removed, but no editor could have reasonably been expected to think that they could not nominate on the basis of conflict of interest under the guidelines listed there. Absolutely no wrongdoing, whatsoever on this account
4. Re-adding deleted material - there is insufficient evidence either way for this account, so I'll just say "undecided" and move on.
5. Posting on WikipediaReview - no evidence presented to substantiate such a charge. Seems to be an attempt at a poisoning the well unless evidence is presented substantiating it.
6. Living in the same state as WordBomb - has no bearing, whatsoever. Is probably an attempt to insinuate the accused user is a sockpuppet of WordBomb, but without any evidence amounts to a personal attack.

I can see no evidence of any serious wrong-doing here on the part of CLA. Everyone makes mistakes, and he has handled the ones demonstrated well. --Haemo 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Haemo 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sounds about right. IrishGuy ^talk 02:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. —AldeBaer 09:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4. This seems a very fair summary. Thryduulf 12:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. --MichaelLinnear 19:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. A quite fine and thorough analysis. Joe 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. *Dan T.* 02:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Good summary --QuiTacetConsentiret 01:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your desire to get feedback on your editing. However I think a self created WP:RFC is the wrong way to go. I would recommend instead Wikipedia:Editor review. Anynobody 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe everything here in this RfC directly relates to editing. Much of it involves non-editing actions. But, I just wanted to get the entire incident documented and open for discussion and RfC seemed the best way to do that once I found that editors were allowed to open RfCs on themselves. CLA 03:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to bother posting here, but as Cla68 says above that he wants to have the whole incident documented, someone needs to supply the details he has conveniently omitted. The following sequence of events shows, at best, that Cla68 has very poor judgment and a poor grasp of our content and behavioral policies. Apologies for the length.

I believe that Cla68 is associated with the banned user Wordbomb, someone who has cyber-stalked and threatened people on and off Wikpedia. I've no idea whether the relationship predates Cla68's involvement in Wikipedia, and it doesn't really matter. In my opinion, they're in touch with each other, and it's clear from the diffs that Cla68 has tried to help WordBomb with his harassment, either because he's sympathetic to WordBomb, or because of poor judgment.

It's worth outlining here that Wordbomb works for a company that is running a campaign against something called naked short selling, a stock market practise that is objectionable in ways I don't fully understand ... actually, don't even partly understand. Some recent news stories about the company's campaign here, here, and here if anyone wants to know more. WordBomb seems to be one of the people in charge of this campaign. It has involved spying on people perceived to be opponents, in the form of setting up websites and trying to lure people to those sites in order to obtain their IP addresses, and trying to track down their identities for the purposes of further harassment. There have also been threatening e-mails sent out using the name Wordbomb and others, but clearly coming from the same person.

One of the journalists who has criticized this campaign publicly is Gary Weiss. Wordbomb got involved in Wikipedia in the summer of 2006, editing from a number of accounts and IP addresses — some of them are listed here and here — because he wanted to make critical edits to the article on Weiss. He began harassing some of the editors who tried to stop him, and he tried to out one of them. I protected the article and blocked the account [21] (my first involvement in the situation). That of course made me part of the conspiracy, and I started receiving the threatening e-mails too. He told me that I stood in the way of something he wanted, so he was "removing" me; he was going to expose me to the media, and I wasn't going to "make it through this one." He also sent me links to a blog he controlled, but disguised as links to Wikipedia articles so that I'd click on them and he could grab the IP address. He started posting to Wikipedia Review, where he made various bizarre claims alleging complex conspiracies, later claiming that he had posted a link there that would lure people to a webpage where he was grabbing IPs. One of WordBombs's claims on Wikipedia Review was that Gary Weiss was under "high administrator protection." Cla68 later repeated this claim about "high adminstrator protection" on Wikipedia (see below). WordBomb also set up a website of his own where he continued the attacks.

Fred Bauder, FloNight, and I were the three admins who mostly dealt with WordBomb's disruption. Then I believe the journalist complained to the Foundation about the attempt to use Wikipedia to harass him, and in addition, the media was writing about the anti-naked-short-selling campaign, so all in all, it was something that needed to be watched carefully.

Into this complex and unpleasant situation wandered Cla68. Some highlights of his behavior:

• On October 27, 2006, WordBomb as User:70.218.97.149 posted a vandalism warning to Mantanmoreland's talk page. [22] (One of WordBomb's habits was to post provocatively on the talk pages of editors who opposed him.) Mantanmoreland removed it, [23] but Cla68 restored it without explanation, and asked Mantan not to remove it again. [24]

• On October 30, Cla68 nominated Gary Weiss for deletion, even though he's clearly notable. [25] The AfD was predictably used as a platform for further attacks, which led to Jimbo deleting the whole page as a courtesy (admins see here). The attacks included Cla68 linking to WordBomb's attack site (removed by Quadell), and stating that three of the regular editors on Gary Weiss were sockpuppets, apparently including Christofurio, though Cla68 didn't say which three. This is a claim that only WordBomb had previously made. See here for Christofurio's discussion with Cla68 about the allegation.

• Cla68 then added to the Gary Weiss article that Weiss's personal website, which was being used as a source in compliance with WP:V and WP:BLP was "self-promotional" [26] (as though personal websites are ever anything but), which showed either a lack of familiarity with the content policies or malice, or both. He wrote that some of the material in Gary Weiss lacked references, and that "[u]ncited text is always ok for immediate deletion without discussion," [27] which also shows unfamiliarity with the policies, because even in BLPs, the material has to be uncited and contentious before it can be removed without discussion.

• Cla68 posted: "Now that 'high administrator' protection for Gary Weiss has apparently ended, we can methodically work on ensuring that the article belongs on Wikipedia ..." This was a repetition of WordBomb's posts to Wikipedia Review. When I asked Cla68 what he meant, he said he was being "facetious." See discussion here.

• Cla68 then tried to "out" Mantanmoreland by restoring a WordBomb post that included who WordBomb thinks Mantan is. On Nov 1 and 6, I had to leave warnings for Cla not to restore posts from banned users and not to post personal details. [28] [29] Cla68's replied that he knew he wasn't allowed to post such material himself, but he didn't know he wasn't allowed to restore it if others posted it. [30] Bear in mind that Cla68 wasn't a newbie: he had been editing for 11 months at this point.

• On November 4, 2006, WordBomb posted to Cla68's talk page as User:Morkadi, accusing me of using Wikipedia to "muster defense of predatory trading practices." Another editor removed the post because it was from a banned user, and Cla68 restored it. Admins see here, Nov 6, 05:39.)

Because of all this, I was very concerned to see Cla68 stand for adminship in March 2007 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cla68). I was also concerned to see that he alluded to the above in a very misleading way. When asked whether he'd been in any conflicts, he said: "I've tackled what I've observed to be POV-pushing in many articles and this has led to some confrontations with other editors, particularly in: Global Warming, Gary Weiss (most of the comments in this dispute were permanently deleted by Mr. Wales, among others) ..." [31] which kind of gives the impression that the POV pushing Cla68 was fighting was so serious that Jimbo had to delete it, whereas the truth is that it was Cla68's posts and AfD nomination that had to be deleted.

I opposed the nom and explained some of what had been going on. I asked Cla68 why he had thought it okay to link to WordBomb's attack site during the AfD. He replied that he didn't regard it as an attack site, "because most of its content ... doesn't relate directly to Wikipedia, but to the Internet as a whole," as if that would make any difference. He added that he hadn't linked to the site since then. [32] He made that statement at 18.23 on April 5. A few minutes later, at 18:29, he posted WordBomb's site to his RfA as a dead link. It was removed, and he restored it, I believe two or three times (admins see here), to the point where he was warned that he might be blocked. [33] This was during his RfA, where you might suppose he'd be on his best behavior.

I feel the above shows either that Cla68 is a friend or sympathizer of WordBomb's, or that he has very poor judgment and is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to any troublemaker, no matter how much disruption that person has caused. I believe this RfC is another attempt to keep the trouble going, which is why I'd decided not to respond; I changed my mind only because it's clear Cla68 is trying to rewrite history.

It's worth noting that responses to this RfC have been solicited on a discussion board to which WordBomb frequently posts; people have been asked to come here and support Cla68. I won't post the link, but I'll e-mail it if any admin wants to see it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing the above

1. I reviewed this evidence and endorse the summary. This appears to be a bad-faith RfC in support of POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse. I can't decide if he has extremely poor judgment or an ulterior motive. Crum375 23:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse. Cla68's straw man presentation of the issues indicates the issues have not been resolved. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I also endorse and this is my only comment on this issue.--MONGO 05:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. I endorse this summary, in particular the discussion that relates to me personally. I should add only that Cla68 has acknowledged that I'm not a sock after all (on my Talk page and in the course of the Afd that Slim discusses here). But he still hasn't named the "three socks" he had in mind when he made the charge, which encourages the thought that he had nothing in particular in mind and was simply echoing WB. --Christofurio 13:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. I agree with the events as described. It does not matter to me if Cla68 knows WordBomb or merely took his bait. In either case, Cla68 showed poor judgment in supporting him on site. FloNight 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse and thank you for the information and explanation. 87.78.154.32 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC) -- not again... —AldeBaer 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. I endorse this also, but with a few comments. I see no reason to doubt Cla's word that he does not have an account at WR, and would not have a problem with it if he did — unless his posts there indicated that he endorsed their harassment of our editors. I also see no reason to doubt his statement that he lives in Japan. I'm concerned by Cla's statement that he didn't know that linking to an attack site was not allowed — as if that justifies it. Even if the people pushing to make this allowed succeeded in their endeavours, I feel that decent people shouldn't want to do anything that will further the harassment and violations of privacy that have taken place. While I can understand that the events at Cla's RfA were distressing for him, I feel that if he was aware of why he was not allowed to link to a site that gave identities (whether true or false) of anonymous editors, he should definitely not have tried repeatedly to get round it by naming the site without linking, with (as he admits) the intention that people would go and look at it. I would like to see from Cla some assurance that he does not support attempts to compromise the privacy of editors here, and that he does not wish to do anything to further their harassment. ElinorD (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

It's worth noting for future reference that QuiTacetConsentiret (talk · contribs), who added his endorsement today of Cla68's summary, is a close ally of WordBomb on another website. I'll e-mail the evidence for this to any admin who's known to me and who wants to see it, as it involves someone's real name. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I think it's fair to hear both side of the story, I'll extend my outside view here to incorporate SlimVirgin's assertions of troublesome behavior. Again, I will proceed in order, as above:

1. Restoration of vandalism warning - I cannot see anything wrong here. There is not indication that User:70.218.97.149 is a sockpuppet of WordBomb, and I do not find it reasonable to believe any any arbitrary editor would be able to identify him as such. In fact, that IP was not even blocked as a sockpuppet of WordBomb, at a later date. In addition, the posted comment does not appear to be vandalism, unless you are familiar with user WordBomb, and knew that this IP was WordBomb. As such, restoring an apparently good-faith vandalism warning is not objectionable activity, by any user.
2. Nomination of article for deletion - SlimVirgin asserts that this was nominated "even though he is clearly notable". However, as explained above, it was not nominated on the basis of notabilty - rather, conflict of interest, and as I explained above, I cannot reasonably find that, given the form of list of criteria for deletion at that time, that there was anything remiss in nominating on such a basis. Furthermore, the assertion that the sockpuppetry claim was one "only made by WordBomb" previously seems less than compelling, given that CLA was apparently reading a site written by WordBomb, and would (presumably) share his views on this subject. Of course, I can't actually read the site, because we're decided to self-censor on this matter...
3. Editing disputes - the addition of the "self-promotional" phrase to the reference about his personal site is a minor content dispute, especially given that everyone appears to agree that it is self-promotional. The second comment here is also a misrepresentation of what is going on here - in context, what occurred was that CLA :

   (1) Added {{fact}} templates to unsourced statements in the article.

   (2) Then put the edit summary: the article has a lot of uncited assertions, if they're not cited soon, some editor will probably start deleting them. Uncited text is always ok for immediate deletion without discussion.

   This does not appear to be a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines, in any way.

4. Repetition of WordBomb's turn of phrase - I see absolutely no reason to doubt that he was being facetious there, as the extensive conversation on that page bears out.
5. Restoring of "outing" material - This was a poor decision on the part of CLA - however, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a user could be unsure on this point. He did it, that was bad, he was told not to, and he stopped.
6. 'Restoration of banned user comment to his talk page - I can't judge the merits of this, since I am not an admin, and so don't have access to the relevant material.
7. Soliciting votes on this RFC on WordBomb's site - again, I can't judge the validity of this material, since it is not available to non-admins.

In any case, taking this as a whole, I don't see any serious evidence that "Cla68 is a friend or sympathizer of WordBomb's". I think he read about some objectionable goings-on on a page, and decided to get involved in the content dispute about them, in order to solve them. I have done the same, on many Wikipedia pages (though never from an off-Wikipedia site), and don't see anything particularly wrong with it. The evidence, taken as a whole, and placed in proper context, shows a few minor misunderstandings and some poor judgment on the part of CLA. The "case" against him appears to be extremely circumstantial, and mostly comprised of inferences which go directly against good faith. I think everyone involved should just take a step back, and go to work editing again - and try and remove some of the acrimony which has surrounded this whole affair. --Haemo 22:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Haemo 22:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. *Dan T.* 22:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to start by apologizing for the tone of my earlier piece; whatever my beliefs may be about other editors, pursuing grudges in a nasty way is not the best of human behavior, and I need to always remember to assume good faith. Also, I don't always understand all of the facts behind complex disputes, so sometimes I may be mistaken, as Cla68 seems to have been regarding several of his own actions here. I think his putting of Weiss up for deletion was a silly move; although the policy at the time might be readable to cover it, deleting an article about a notable person just because there have been possible conflicts of interest in its past editing doesn't seem to be the best practice. I'll try to assume good faith about everyone involved, as much as possible, and hope they'll do the same and not overreact to anybody else's actions that seem to resemble or recall those of a hated troll. *Dan T.* 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S.: Is Gary Weiss any relation to investment newsletter publisher Martin Weiss? Before getting into this whole controversy here, I'd heard of the latter, but not the former.) *Dan T.* 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. *Dan T.* 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 seems to have acted on principles, if not on process, in this case. In situations where actors close to or personally involved in whatever real world dramas are using WP as a staging area, not clumsily but adroitly, the "winner" in any attempt to bring associated content conflicts inline with WP policy will be the "side" with the more critical social network... Cla68's initial mistake seems to have been taking WP policies at face value. Although he was ultimately successful, with the help of others who share this problem, in making the Weiss article read less like a vanity bio, Cla68 spearheaded the initiative and didn't go in with a cavalry. (Not that having a cavalry helped Custer!) While his efforts to bring the article inline with policy probably saved both the subject and WP much further press-related grief, for those who view personal protection and protection of the encyclopedia as identical issues, this (embarrassment? disturbance in the wikiality-truthiness-force continuum?) could not be countenanced. (As all higher-order Wikipedians know, anything "evil" on WP is always due to "trolls" and "sockpuppets.") So Cla68 was made out to look like an agent of Weiss's enemies (probably his on-site agents actually believed this) and tactical errors he made during his RFA went to further amplify the case against promoting him to adminship.

Still, all that being the case, I gotta ask, why dwell on it? Spilled (virtual!) milk, I say. —AL ^FOCUS! 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —AL ^FOCUS! 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Spilled (real!) time. —AldeBaer 22:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
3. --MichaelLinnear 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. *Dan T.* 02:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly stated, Cla68 aggressively supported a banned user, WordBomb, that was harassing several Wikipedia users on and off site.

Some background information: I became involved in the situation last July when the banned user WordBomb appealed his indefinite block and SlimVirgin asked me to review the block and take over the situation. The situation was complex in the sense that WordBomb was making strong allegations against a number of editors including SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin wanted to make certain that her own personal views about the overall situation were not colored by WordBomb's attacks on her and some editors that she had worked with in the past. After careful review, I agreed that WordBomb and socks should be indefinitely blocked for trying to out editors and general disruption. WordBomb then appealed to Fred Bauder who agreed with the indefinite block. Then for many months after, WordBomb using sock puppets and meat puppets made many harassing comments on Wikipedia and on other sites. Many of the post had to be deleted or oversighted because they claimed to contained personal information about Wikipedia editors. This was an intensely time consuming situation that required many hours of administrative work for many administrators.

Cla68's claim that he did not understand Wikipedia policy does not fully explain why he involved himself in a disruptive way in the first place. Taking actions such as demanding that a warning template stay on an established user's talk page or starting an Afd, speaks to the skewed and high level of involvement Cla68 had in the situation. This is much more involvement than merely rewriting an article to make it read from a more NPOV standpoint as he states.

The web site that Cla68 says directed him to the Wikipedia article was attacking Wikipedia editors. This was obvious without knowing the full details of the situation. He decided to take the side of the owner of this site over Wikipedia administrators that were dealing with the situation. Cla68 certainly showed poor judgment in doing this. During his RFA Cla68 continued to defend his decisions or make excuses for his poor judgment rather than give an unconditional and full apology for his behavior. Together with this Rfc that did not fully outline the main issues, I wonder if Cla68 really understands the main concerns of the people opposing his RFA. I still have concerns about his overall judgment and wonder if he can be relied on to make sound calls as an editor/admin in the future. Time will tell. If he puts this event in the past and goes on to be a sound editor then I will be pleased to support his RFA. But I feel that is still in the distant future since he has not satisfied my concerns yet. FloNight 17:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. A very clear summary of the issues. It's a shame that people are writing all sorts of "summary of events" that have little relationship to the reality of what actually happened; let's hope they read your summary, and learn something. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. A good overview. It is unfortunate that Cla68 did not use this opportunity to present the real diffs and come clean, and instead is trying to whitewash the events and his behavior. Crum375 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. If Cla68 had said here, "I assumed good faith of WordBomb but not of the other editors; I was a fool and I'm sorry," that would likely have been the end of it. Instead, there was another attempt to present a very partial account of what happened. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Through an RfC, editors may seek broad input regarding disputes over user conduct as an open part of the dispute resolution process. Broad input already has been received on this topic in multiple locations prior to this RfC, including at Cla68's RfA. The "Fully document" desired outcome of this RfC can never be achieved because the diffs surrounding the event have been deleted and we are left with only beliefs as to what they were. In addition, the "discuss" desired outcome has been achieved prior to this RfC.
Perhaps this RfC should have been opened with details of all input received to date, a characterization of the efforts used to resolve disputed items, and a description of the remaining disputed items and a desired outcome listed of suggestions on how the remaining disputes may be resolved. Instead, this RfC appears to start from square one, resulting in SlimVirgin once again being compelled into both reliving the events and providing input already posted elsewhere. Even with its additional comments, I do not see this RfC as an effort that will move this dispute forward because it unintentionally continues to cause those who feel hurt by the actions to relive those actions once again in a public way. Moreover, it focuses on determining whether one fact/statement or another is true regarding the event. For each fact, some will believe them and some will not. Attempting to resolve who is right and who is wrong will not resolve the dispute.
On April 6, 2007, I posted a message to Cla68 on what I thought needed to be done to move this matter forward:

If there is anything to be taken away from your (March 28, 2007 to April 6, 2007) RfA is that SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland do not seem to think that you are trustworthy and they still feel hurt. I do not know Mantanmoreland, but have seen enough of SlimVirgin's posts to know that she is honest in expressing what she believes. Other than deleting the diffs, there isn't much else that can be done about the past. In the end, it comes down to that some people still feel hurt by what happened and you are in a position help resolve their feelings. Jimbo put it best in early March 2007 when he indicated that Wikipedia is built on us trusting each other and on human understanding and forgiveness of errors.[34] I think that your efforts to generate understanding were not well received because trust needs to come first. If you work on repairing SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland's trust in you, there eventually may be understanding and then perhaps forgiveness.

Two months have passed since my above April 6th post. If you look at SlimVirgin's post above, it does not appear to be one of trust for Cla68 and there seems to be agreement from others that this RfC works away from rebuilding that trust. An unstated outcome of this RfC seems to be understanding. However, understanding will never be achieved until trust is sought and resolved. Jreferee 17:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Jreferee 17:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Pomte 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strongly endorse. Well said indeed. —AldeBaer 09:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I am "outside" this other than in the sense that I never participated in either the Gary Weiss article or the RfA referenced here. But few of those responding or concurring here are really fully outside.

This RfC fits into a much larger dispute, one that has popped up in the failed proposal Wikipedia:Attack sites and spread from there. It is very hard at this point to get a handle on the truth of the matter, because too many of the people who are making the decisions are also patently parties in the dispute.

The root of the problem seems to be in certain controversial articles and a very aggressive policy taken towards editors in those articles. This policy is being expressed most egregiously, as I see it, in the almost preemptive identification of sockpuppets and other "illegitimate" editors. A lot of this seems to me highly questionable. When checkuser is used, the problem is that non-admins are simply having to take these identifications for granted; but the identification through editing patterns is far too speculative. And it seems to be OK when some people do it, but bad behavior when other people do it (which seems to have been Cla68's principal sin).

I found it interesting to look back at User:Ptmccain's case, which arose out of frustration with a concerted effort to WP:OWN articles on and relating to Martin Luther so as to play up his anti-semitism. Yes, he stepped out of line, but he was sorely provoked by Mantanmoreland and SlimVirgin, who (in my opinion) banked on their authority as admins to prevail in the edit conflict. This seems to me to be a recurring pattern, down to and including the battle over "attack sites" and the promise not to abide by the repeated failures to obtain consensus about them. Meanwhile people are being stigmatized because they rightly go to external sites in an attempt to find out what is going on, and then get slapped for daring to do so. I think the only reason that Dan Tobias and I get away with it is that he is so obviously antagonistic to the members of those sites, and I just don't edit the kind of articles where the conflicts arise-- except for the policy discussions, where I have been subjected to a range of personal attacks for participating in those sites.

There is going to continue to be trouble as long as there is the appearance that a group of admins and their associates are controlling certain topics by getting their opponents blocked and banned. It seems to me that Cla68 has simply gotten swept up in this because there is now an adequate pretext for subjecting him to discipline. Mangoe 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Mangoe 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. *Dan T.* 02:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on the talk page, where it seemed to go unnoticed by those who this is addressed at:

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 10:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse these thoughts:

1. Dekimasuよ! 01:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. *Dan T.* 02:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.