User:Filll/Cla68 sequence of events
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Summary of queries and responses
Q=query, T=threat, D=denial, d=half denial, half threat
- Q1 17:33 May 8, 2008 Guettarda asks Cla68 about apparent threat, T1
- D1 21:19, 8 May 2008 Cla68 denies he made a threat, but not overly convincing given his history
- T2 00:39, 9 May 2008 Cla68 makes a more explicit threat
- d1 01:44, 9 May 2008 Cla68 refers to a post he made on WR making a half-hearted denial of a threat
- Q2 08:31, 9 May 2008 Dave souza asks Cla68 why his retractions and clarifications look like thinly veiled threats
- 11:03, 9 May 2008 Cla68 tries to justify his threat on the basis of alleged previous bad behavior of some editors, and an Arbcomm case
- Q3 14:08 and 14:56 9 May 2008 Filll corrects some of Cla68's statements and asks for more clarification of his position
- T3 15:51, 9 May 2008 Cla68 again repeats his threat, again justifying it with an Arbcomm case and as revenge for RfA voting
- 17:05 9 May 2008 Filll again corrects Cla68's understanding and cautions him about making things worse
- T4 00:14, 10 May 2008 Cla68 repeats his threat
- Q4 01:33, 10 May 2008 Filll asks for clarification of threat; no response
- 01:59 10 May 2008 Filll asks why standard DR is not pursued; no response
- T5 May 9, 2008 Vague threat by Cla68 at WR
- T6 May 11 2008 Moderate threat by Cla68 at WR
- D2 May 13, 2008 Cla68 apologizes for not "choosing his words more carefully"
A more detailed sequence of events:
1) User:Moulton conducted a POV campaign which disrupted the Rosalind Picard article over content about the Dissent petition, resulting in a RfC and ultimately a community ban. Example of the change Moulton was trying to force: [1]
2) Moulton then went to Wikipedia Review where over a period of 6 months or so, Moulton tried to drum up support for his campaign: WR1 WR2 WR3 WR3 WR4 WR4
3) Within 30 days of Moulton's article/rant at Wikipedia Review WR4 Wikipedia Review editors arrived and starting causing turmoil at the Picard article, picking up where Moulton left off, starting with User:Krimpet repeating Moulton's preferred edit: [2]
4) After several days of edit warring which resulted in the article being locked down, the Wikipedia Review editors failed to gain enough support to topple consensus and so failed to make the changes Moulton called for at the Picard article. The campaign was orchestrated and run by Moulton in real time, as his posts to this thread at Wikipedia Review show: WR5
5) Cla68 makes an offsite veiled threat at Wikipedia Review to 'out' to the media those who opposed the Wikipedia Review editors walking in the footsteps of Moulton, seeming to target the members of the Intelligent Design Wikiproject, a frequent object of Moulton's ire WR6
I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends [not defined] are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.
6) When questioned about this, Cla68 clarified it by stating:
It's unfortunate that group [not defined] of editors' behavior related to Intelligent Design articles has become such a problem that uninvolved editors and admins like me [emphasis added] have noticed the problem and gotten involved to varying degrees. I hope that the editors in question are willing and able to correct their behavior on their own. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
7) Cla68 attempted to mitigate the potential harassing nature of his comment at WR7 where he said:
A couple of threads related to this discussion broke out on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cla68#Stay_away http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cla..._appropriate.3F For the record, earlier in this thread I wasn't threatening to out anyone. I was commenting on the fact that at least one press representative was aware of this situation. If he or any other journalist decides to write an article on this group of POV-pushers and their antics in Wikipedia, I don't think that the reporter would find it too difficult to learn of their real names. Besides the name of one of them that has been discussed by others already, I don't know any of their real names and am making no effort to find out their real names. If the press did decide that this story would be of interest to a general audience, the Wikipedia editors who created this issue with their problematic behavior have only themselves to blame.
8) When asked to clarify this further, Cla68 responded:
... I don't have an opinion on the ID debate [unclear connection to threat]. If [emphasis added] the editors in question correct their behavior, then I'll gladly move on to other issues...
9) After some more conversation, Cla68 again stated:
Like I said, if [emphasis added] there aren't any more conduct problems (edit warring, canvassing, etc) related to ID articles, then I leave it alone.
10) Asked for further clarification,[6][7]. Cla68 has to this point been silent on this matter on Wikipedia since May 9, 2008. He has made some more threats at Wikipedia Review, however. On May 13, 2008 Cla68 apologized for not choosing his words more carefully [8], but it is hard to know how to interpret that exactly, given what has happened before.
11) Posted to thread at Wikipedia Review by Cla68 on May 9, 2008:
I came back from a weekend away from the computer and found this furball on my user talk page. Those guys are trying to push back fairly hard. I'm going to look at the links you provided here and look harder at the ID-related articles and try to get fully oriented with the situation beyond what I know of a few behavioral issues with some of the editors in question.
12) Posted by Cla68 May 11, 2008 to a thread at Wikipedia Review:
I was going to say that it was unfortunate that this group decided to try to escalate things this way. But actually, I think it was fortunate, because now I'm obligated to look into the matter more deeply and either put up or shut up. DanT commented in that thread that the saber-rattling needs to stop. He's right. After I finish preparing this article for featured consideration I'm going to take some time and look at the past and present conduct of these editors more closely. If I find anything, and based on what I've seen so far there does appear to be more problematic behavior that needs to be addressed, then I'm going to ask them about it politely but directly. Hopefully they'll respond like adults.
