:As per my best friends advice. I am going to the bathroom to take a nice warm buble bath for a couple hours. I'll be locking the door to think over a couple things, I may take a Christmas break as well. But, please Asume good faith here. If you trully wish to know the entire story I think an RfC (whether it be on me, on cplot, on Mongo, or on AMA) would be the ideal. (I usually don't go placing evidence talk pages because usually this is "the first step" towards conflict resolution inbetween 1 or 2 people. (Helps, concentrate the conversation in one place). Currently I have my hands full with 2 AMA cases. I think I have enough trouble trying to help cplot understand the rules, let alone the comments that fail to suggest any solutions ((wich I have already sugested to cplot... To stop with the sockpuppets)). My analysis of the situation, I believe only points towards an RfC. Though, I actually think creating a page on AMA is a good proposal and I may just do that. I'll need to think about a couple things. I'll see you guys after mi wiki-break. And, just in case I go on wiki-vacation Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. ((p.s.: I will advise you if this happens and attempt to assign an interim advocate in the mean time)) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
:As per my best friends advice. I am going to the bathroom to take a nice warm buble bath for a couple hours. I'll be locking the door to think over a couple things, I may take a Christmas break as well. But, please Asume good faith here. If you trully wish to know the entire story I think an RfC (whether it be on me, on cplot, on Mongo, or on AMA) would be the ideal. (I usually don't go placing evidence talk pages because usually this is "the first step" towards conflict resolution inbetween 1 or 2 people. (Helps, concentrate the conversation in one place). Currently I have my hands full with 2 AMA cases. I think I have enough trouble trying to help cplot understand the rules, let alone the comments that fail to suggest any solutions ((wich I have already sugested to cplot... To stop with the sockpuppets)). My analysis of the situation, I believe only points towards an RfC. Though, I actually think creating a page on AMA is a good proposal and I may just do that. I'll need to think about a couple things. I'll see you guys after mi wiki-break. And, just in case I go on wiki-vacation Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. ((p.s.: I will advise you if this happens and attempt to assign an interim advocate in the mean time)) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
== Test [[WP:AN/I]] theory ==
This is a test to see what would happen if someone tried to impersonate my friend JzG with his signature. A discussion will be starting up at [[WP:Help desk (comment)]]. >>><b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)<<<
And adding {disoute} and {NPOV} tags to articles without providing evidence of factual inaccuracy or bias is also vandalism. So if you do that again you're in trouble, too. God alone knows what readers must think, seeing the article on the humble motorized bicycle tagged up like the Moldovan language conflict. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?22:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid having to ask for you to be blocked (remember, I said I would not block people with whom I am in active dispute) I have protected the page. Absent evidence of real and substantive POV and accuracy disputes, there are no reaosnable grounds for your continuing to add those tags. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?23:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should be careful at not to abuse your powers, and I would appreciate if you had another administrator do this, considering as you would often say "your fledged interest" in the subject.
Actually, Pat, the right thing to do would be for you to stop adding the tags (which you have done before, with pretty much the same result, except without protection). There is no factual accuracy dispute, and there is no demonstrable bias. You just don't like the article being the way it is, but you are not neutral. And yes I did think twice about it and consider getting somoene else to do it, but settled for posting a summary on the noticeboard instead - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advocacy help
What can I do for you, CyclePat? I have some limited time to assist, if you will have me: I have never been an advocate before (on Wikipedia, anyway, I do it for a living in the real world). Dyslexic agnostic04:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can create your own workspace, for example, at User:CyclePat/Motorized bicycle, and then work on your own version of this page, seeking comments from other interested parties along the way. This might give you the chance to demonstrate your own vision of how you see this page ending up.
As to whether you are acting POV, I don't realy know that I know enough about the situation to comment. The mere fact that you have some personal financial interest in electric bicycles shouldn't by itself create a POV conflict... in fact, it means you have some expertise to bring to the editing "table", so to speak.
Hope this helps. I'm a lawyer in real life, so advocacy is often important. The temptation to get nasty with the other side develops when things get heated (I know!), but it rarely helps. Good luck! Dyslexic agnostic04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, Pat has already tried RfC and RfM, and neither of them gave him what he wanted. He has also forked the article to Pedelec (deleted), created an article in the main space on CyclePat (deleted), edit-warred over the redirect at Electric bicycle (redirect by consensus), forked at Timeline of motorized bicycle history (now proposed for merger folowing lack of interest after his forked content was deleted by consensus), forked it at Gallery of motorized bicycles (deleted), edit-warred over insertion of {dispute} and {NPOV} tags to Motorized bicycle and sundry other disruptions. Pat's problem is this: he is a would-be manufacturer of electric bicycles in Ontario, where there is an unfavourable regulatory climate. He has stated in the past that he wants changes to support legal moves by someone he is helping. Your best bet is to steer well clear, because every single person whoi has got involved with this subject has ended up in a battle with Pat's POV. That includes two established admins (User:Katefan0 and Woohookitty) and one editor who has been sysopped recently (me). Long experience indicates that Pat will continue forum shopping until he gets the answer he wants. If you go back through the archives of the Talk page you will find that there is plenty of conflict with other peoiple too! Believe it or not I'm actually trying to help Pat do this the right way, by consensus. Apparently this will not give the desired result quickly enough for Pat's liking. Oh, and you might want to check the Talk page archive (Pat archived it just before he went to talk to you). It includes a lot of past history on this issue, a specific description of some of his agenda, and several examples of people giving sound advice. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]13:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know if you stil wanted me to reply on my talk page, so I do it here. I've just read Talk:Motorized bicycle and part of the article. It's obvious to me that, while I'd like to help, I can't do much for these two reasons:
I don't know anything in this subject or relating to this.
Because of my lack of knowledge concerning this, I can't really see much problem with is as it is right now.
I can only say that I partly agree with you and I partly agree with the other editors. I agree with them that some things are obvious, but I also think some less obvious things could need source, but I didn't see the POV problem. I'm sorry that I can't help further resolving this conflict, but I just can't start helping you or the other editors when I'm not even sure what I'd be writing about.--DarkEvil01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bonnie and Clyde
CyclePat Hi Pat! I went into considerable detail on the discussion page on the allegations made on that article, I also reworded a couple of sections to reflect direct quotes from sources. I am at a loss how some of the critics blame Kate for any alleged error - i asked them if they have a source, or an error, bring it to me, and I will correct the article at once, in other words, if you have real information, tell it, instead of attacking the poor editor who is just trying to keep this professional! As to Bonnie and Clyde, I have every book ever written on them -- if someone wants to dispute something, do so, and we will research it, and resolve it -- don't attack people! I addressed their legitimate concerns by rewording the sections in question, and heavily sourcing, by direct quotes and even page numbers! If they have further concerns, I have asked Tru nicely to bring the info to me, and I will take care of it. Hope you are well! old windy bear14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68.156.240.30
CyclePat Hi Pat! Will you take a look at this user? 68.156.240.30 - ALL of his edits are terrible, vandalism, and the one on maternal deaths just sickening. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE??? This is a great project, and instead of contributing they make work for the administrators, and users who want to contribute by having to reverse their vandalism! UGH!old windy bear21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking the next few days off because I'm comming up with what maybe pneumonia. Please pray for my good health.--CyclePat 03
You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.
I am finding sources for these articles. Give me about 15 more minutes and I will be done. Thank you. Also, please know that every time you put those tags on that page, they appear on every page that tallys that medals fgor the olympics and that is a lot. Thank you for your compassion. I just didn't want that page do be deleted when I was working on it. --Jared17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost finished with the sources. would you please be kind enough to remove the tags when I finish. They're ugly as heck and not to mention they show up on like 50+ pages. That would be great if you could do that. I'll alert you when I'm finished. Cordially, Jared17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well thank you. Now that everything is fixed, there should be no problem when it comes to deletion because I have the proper sources in place. When it comes time for the talk of deletion, though, where will this discussion be held...in the discussion page? --Jared17:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, next time you are tempted to tag up an article like that (let alone a template), please do ask around first. If you don't trust me, ask somebody else. Your action was precipitate - to suggest that an Olympic medal table "requires sources" is pressing a point too far since the sources are freely available on the Internet and published every day in the press, whether or not the people using them have accurately transcribed the figures.
Apart from anything else you apparently only half-did the process, and it was the wrong process to start with (should have been templates for deletion). Oh, and you tagged entirely the wrong article - you tagged the medal tables template, in effect demanding sources for the existence of the 2006 Winter Olympics. The article you want deleted, Olympic games medal count, does not exist and never did.
Also, you said in the delete request that all it required was citations - that is not grounds for deletion unless you believe that the article is irredeemable in that regard (i.e. original research without prospect of reliable external sources - absurd in the case of an Olympic medal table). If that sounds like "don't be a dick" then I probably got the tone about right :-) Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism tags
Please please please do not add vandalism tags to user's talk pages. They are meant to be used for...well...vandals...people trying to deface the encyclopedia. I really wish you would see how this stuff is used before using it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)20:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, you are not seriously telling me that you aren't stalking pages yourself, are you? I mean, do you want me to believe that you just happened to see Just diz guy's posts on *my* talk page? Come now. And no, what you are describing isn't really vandalism. As I said, the tag you used is designed to warn people making serious vandal edits. Using it on a admin's talk page is absolutely not what it was designed for. I wish you'd see how this stuff is used before using it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)20:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pat. Once again, the vandalism tags are used to warn vandals that what they are doing is destructive to the encyclopedia. The problem is that if we use your definition, then what you keep doing is as much "vandalism" as what JzG is doing. You are adding tags that don't belong to articles such as the Olympic games medal template. Citing sources is good, but in the case of something like the Olympics, it's completely unnecessary. And if you read the WP:CITE policy, you'd see why. But you didn't. You probably did what you usually do, which is to read the first few sentences, think you know what the policy is about and then attack others for not using it. Read the entire thing. General knowledge does not need to be sourced. So. Adding the tag you added and bringing it all up for deletion is just as much "vandalism" as JzG removing that tag. I'd argue that it's even more disruptive. Do not use the vandalism tags like you did. They are not meant to be used like that. I guarantee you that I've done a heck of alot more vandal fighting than you have and I'm telling you that those tags are not to be used in the way you used them. If they were supposed to be used that way, you would've had that tag on your page many many many times since you joined Wikipedia. We all would have. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, your Talk page is on my watchlist, along with several hundred other user Talk pages. There are a very small number of people whose contribution lists I regularly check, all for excellent reasons, and you are not one of them. If I see an edit to a Talk page with an interesting-looking edit history, I go along and read it. In this case I tried to help you not to make a complete tit of yourself but was apparently too late. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. —David Levy22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blaaoooock hum-bug! This is all a WP:POINT to punish me. I sent an email to to the administrator that blocked me. And a copy to my friend JzG because inherently, it is partly because of you that I'm here. Partially. Because I didn't bring up a request for vandalism comment. (or whatever it is!) But it comes down to being my fault. I admit to doing more that 3 reverts. And to the the person that blocked me, my email, goes like this:
Thank you for pointing out the 3 RR rule. I would like to point out that yes, seemingly I did do more than 3 reverts. I would also like to point out that most of these where done to revert vandalism.
At least 3 off them where in regards to vandalism. Another 3 edits where a slight accomodation. No mater the fact I would like to point out to you that.
The reverst where reported by mike around 17:11 hours.[4]
Comment:
according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule Intent of the policy 3 RR:
the policy is intended to stop edit wars, not mete out punishment, reports dredging up old incidents long past their applicability/relevance to this policy...
...are pointless.
...will not be looked upon kindly.
...may be treated as a WP:POINT violation.
...will be mocked mercilessly.
...will be sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
The editing war was done. finito. I even had the time to go and put up the fact on the talk page that the article was listed for AFD. I now know that 3 RR is not the page for dealing with "vandalism" (please review that page for the definition of what constitutes vandalism):
I now know that if I find myself reverting edits due to simple vandalism, I should list that person at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. However on my talk page woohookitty has stated that what JzG tried to do was not vandalism. So I'm all the more confused.
Finally:
Arguably, some of those edits where not complete reverts and where discussed on user talk pages of JzG, my talk page, and in the AFD. I move that this block is a WP:POINT Violation. --CyclePat00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meuh! Go figure. Thank you b.t.w. for taking the time to give me a warning. Oh! Yah! That's true you didn't because all of this was done as a spitfull punishement. Good job upholding wiki policy! --CyclePat00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You had a warning on 6 Nov 2005, and FYI it was I who reported your 3RR violation. Yes it does allow reverts due to vandalism, however you tagged a Template with the wrong tags, to make a WP:Point, as you admited to on JzG's talk page. Mike(TC)00:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No not really. I taged the template for AFD because it was the most logical and easiest way to proceed toward receiving comments from all these article. I had every tag possible to explain my disposition on the subject. I also stated these reasons in the AFD, on the discusion page for that AFD. Again... the articles lack sources, lacking sources means that the information is possibly original research. Original research is criteria for deletion. Anyone could have easilly commented on the VfD but go figure some people though it would be better to remove the AFD from the template. --CyclePat01:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that the lines of disruption are drawn not by you, but by those who consider what is disruptive. Therefore, I'm afraid your current defense is not defense enough. --TML198806:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moped Question
On a unrelated to the wiki note, do you know anywhere in the Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa region that sells new/used mopeds?? Mike(TC)01:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! There a web site called http://moped2.org/main.htm . Unfortunatelly I saw mostly American Dealer ship listings. But I would give it a look if you're interested in buying. You may find something in the for sale section. Used moped dealers I think are rare here in Ontario. I'm more into electric bicycle conversions. Many classified and personal sales exist at www.mopedarmy.com or here. You may be able to buy directly from the user. And if you ever want to add an electric hub motor to the front or back of your gas powered moped. Call me up. For the new mopeds, in Ottawa we have Duran Duran. Or Deran I should say... [5] There is also another place I saw in the yellow pages, that I've called up a couple times but there more into scooters. But for some reason they agree with my petition. --CyclePat01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple Pat
It's just not "ok" to make bad faith nominations and you've done it several times. What's a bad faith nomination? A bad faith nomination is putting something up for deletion in the hopes that it fails so that then you can bring back other articles. Or in the case of the Olympic articles, putting them up for deletion when actually, you just felt like they should be sourced. You should *only* put articles up for deletion when you want them deleted...no other purpose. There are many many ways to accomplish what you want without putting things up for deletion. As I've stated since the start, we don't hide these things. But it's disruptive to do what you've been doing. You put what...20 templates up for deletion, all in bad faith? I would call that highly disruptive, wouldn't you? --Woohookitty(cat scratches)12:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the smartest thing I've heard from anyone here on wikipedia in a long time! I think this should be writen right on the delete policy. Sorry if if I've disrupted wikipedia by following the rules to the letter. I think it’s because I here... or read the parts (Remember though, I read this from wiki policy... I don't try to make it up), that I want a hear. I exaggerate those parts in my mind. Then I say them to myself a couple times over and over. Until I know or believe it’s the correct way to go. Extreemism may be the issue. You of all people should know I'm always a couple of step a head, even if I don't have the proper foundation. (in this case slowly permited the other steps to mature... ie.: my electric bicycle company and this most recent example)... As you've said wikipedia will be a learning curve. As I've said... I think it will help in my personal developement. Thank you! --CyclePat03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
b.t.w. It was one template that was on about 50 pages. The reason being that all or most of the pages that it appeared on are missing sources. I believe those articles are a candidate for wikisource... but only after we get the citation problem fixed. And the vicious circle start all over again... This time, I'll try not to jump the gun on in the future. --CyclePat03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
on the pictures
I collect Albanian memorabilia and I have several newspaper articles that talk about this lady. Not sure... can I upload them?
Hello and greetings from Canada. If I may sugest a solution for you, all you really need to do is cite the source of the newspaper. The date. At this point there is probably no need to upload picture of the entire news paper cover. This may be interesting to add later on as a picture within the article to give it credibility. However, you will still need to add a proper reference\citation for the photo's. You may find the answer here at WP:CITE. p.s.: Dont' forget to sign your comments! --CyclePat03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Found!, [6] thanks for your help[reply]
Don't forget the pictures need their sourcing. I'm not sure how wiki does it but I think it can't hurt if you put sourcing on the pictures and on the article. Good luck. Cheers --CyclePat04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CyclePatkatefano Unknown internet addresses keep putting tags on the bonnie and clyde article, without citing what precisely they are challanging. I removed it at first, but decided that it needed referring to an editor. I think when someone tags, they should be required to show cause, why factually it is tagged, then source same. This is Pig, again, with his internet addresses without names, because he is barred. Lord, when someone tags, they should at the minimum be required to cite why, and source same! At any rate, I am not playing a revert game, I have shifted it to you and Kate! Thanks! old windy bear03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully in the mean time, the person that nominated this article will stand up and explain. It only seems logical. Simply saying or putting on the dipute tag because of some discusiong that maybe have previously occured, in my eyes, is not the best way to do it.
Apparently, CyclePat and Oldwindybear have not noticed that the talk page for Bonnie and Clyde holds plentiful and explicit documentation of errors in accuracy and failure to maintain NPOV, exactly as claimed by the TotallyDisputed tag. When such directly relevant documentation exists on a talk page, there is no requirement that new documentation be added -- only that it be there roughly in time with the addition of the tag (which it was). To discern the reason for the cleanup tag, however, requires nothing more than reading the article with a clear head.
Given the evidence on the talk page, calling the tag vandalism is denial of the obvious. Further, the talk page is locked to all edits by IP users. Therefore, claiming that more verbiage need be inserted by tagging IP users is the same as saying that IP users may not tag articles as violating NPOV, needing cleanup, etc, when the corresponding talk pages are so protected. That is not in line with any Wikipedia policy of which I'm aware. The repeated attempts to disclaim through such feigned legalism the POV and other problems should be embarrassing to anyone who reads the article and weighs it against the evidence, cited and logical, on the talk page. After that material has been dealt with, there remain more problems with the article which haven't yet been documented on the talk page. One thing at a time, since some observers are unable to cope with, or even notice, the evidence and points raised already by multiple users on the talk page. 216.8.14.5410:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you have indicated. "One thing at a time, since some observers are unable to cope with, or even notice, the evidence and points raised already by multiple users on the talk page." And I am simply asking for you to state the key executive issues. Please summarize the issues, as is I believe customary. Please present a excutive summary of the issue and please talk about the subject in a general overview (Unlike previous instances where oldwindybear was being harrased by user:Pig or when he RFCd katefan, analysing every sentence is not an option here.) And if you want us to take you seriously you will create an account. --CyclePat17:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, of course, is that this person has already created an account (or several accounts, to be more accurate -- including User:SaltyPig and User:Wbfl), but both were indefinitely banned from contributing to Wikipedia for trolling, harassment, personal attacks, vandalism and disruption. And of course, if he creates more accounts, they'll also be banned. Hence the problem. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CyclePatKatefan0 Hi Pat, Hi Kate! I noticed at once that this was the person known as Pig, Wbfl, and several other aliases. Kate summed up the whole situation very nicely a long time ago, when she challanged him/her to correct these terrible inadequacies in the article, if they do indeed verifably exist. Pat's request that this person, banned under several names, submit a key list of grievances is fine with me - in essence, he wants to rewrite history. John Treherne, and the other genuine historians who studied Bonnie and Clyde literally went to every jurisdiction alleged offenses took place, and could find no warrants (or even sworn complaints!) against Bonnie for murder. The best evidence available for an encyclopedia article is sources like Treherne, or other experts, who actually went and studied every single available court record. Trouble is, Pig, or whatever name he is using this time, prefers to threaten people, or launch particularly viscious personal attacks rather than doing what Kate has told him to do time and again -- bring forth the evidence to back his claims, and correct the article. Instead he threatens me, literally, and gets banned. When I saw his writing last night, I knew immediately it was pig under yet another anonymous account, and continue his campaign of (I like Kate's sumnation) trolling, harassment, personal attacks, vandalism and disruption. I am taking Pat's good advice, and leaving this one to you and Kate. Personally, I hope you lift the tag, because the article is a good one, fair, changed many times to reflect a consensus among everyone but Pig and his many aliases. Pat, thanks, Kate, hi, and I hope you are well. Hey, the really amusing part of Pig's latest alias, and his response, was his claim that "many" users have disputed most of the article. He is the "many," having made up repeated and different aliases, trupatriot, Jerry Dorsen, SaltyPig, et al. I suppose by that logic I should go the library, use different computers, create many accounts, and agree with myself, creating a huge consensus! old windy bear19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following is an example of how a Wikipedia administrator comments on a talk page after adding a TotallyDisputed tag:
I also dispute this article as it is written's facual accuracy as well. Many, MANY assertions of fact in this article need specific citations, particularly ones that could be viewed as potentially libelous to Frank Hamer or his living relatives. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. There should be no expectation for greater specificity placed on a non-admin, especially when the manifold issues of inaccuracy and POV are far better documented at Talk:Bonnie and Clyde than they were on the page where Katefan0 left the above comment to accompany the added TotallyDisputed tag. If there are to be two standards for editing at wikipedia, then please admit that explicitly and end the dancing. For Oldwindybear and Katefan0, this has simply become a Pig fixation (all assumed, of course -- incorrectly in Oldwindybear's comment above), rather than one of content -- demonstrated ably by the duplicitous requirements for accepting the tagging of an article.
Surprisingly, the Bonnie and Clyde article gets very little editing traffic in relation to the infamy of the subject. That has always been the case here, and most of the issues left on the Bonnie and Clyde talk page have not been addressed by anyone, much less by "consensus". Therefore, arguing that new documentation must be supplied is specious (just as the decision by an admin to SP the article talk page). With all the referring to "Pig", no one can point to a single instance where he, or anybody arguing his position, vandalized the article. Please address content, not personalities. The content in existence for this tag addition is clearly superior to that in place when Katefan0 added hers above, and that tag is still in place. Put some perspective on the complaining please, and deal with the flaws at Bonnie and Clyde objectively. 216.8.14.10121:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(scribble0 I strongly echo Kate's response -- fix them. By the way, you neglect to mention that since Kate left that note on my Frank Hamer article, I have completely rewritten it in accordance with wikipedia format, sourced it all, and still Kate has eliminated part of it. Point is, you neglect, as usual, to mention that her instructions, and concerns, were met with dozens of edits, rewording to comply with the necessity to avoid potential for suit, and strongly sourcing. You still have not specifically listed your concerns, as CyclePat required. And frankly, the writing above is exactly the same as Pig's and many of his alias's, including Jerry Dorsen, Esquire of nothing. Either list the errors, as Pat has requested, or fix them, as Kate has requested - but no, you will do neither, you will continue to dredge up old statements, and attempt to waste all our tiem in an endless debate. Kate, Pat, please require this user to either list his issues, as Pat requested, fix the errors, as Kate requested, or lift the tag. Pig would have us all debate forever to no useful purpose except endless argument. Woohookitty is right though, all he does is endlessly use different addresses, for endless debate to no point.old windy bear21:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oldwindybear, there seems to be confusion regarding the requirement that a TotallyDisputed tag have appropriate comment. The issue is not one of chronology. Rather, it's that the documentation be there with the tag. That requirement has been met, and then some. Katefan0 added documentation much later at Frank Hamer? Great! You may also notice that she implies that one should fix rather than tagging. Obviously, that was not her fervent personal belief until, oh, about 30 minutes ago. Plenty of time has elapsed to let truth rise to the top in that regard.
You still have not specifically listed your concerns, as CyclePat required.
Let's be very clear on this. Far as I know, not one person has approached me, the tagger, to ask in good faith that more detail be provided. CyclePat's approach, and yours, has been in the form, "this, or else". Nor is there any reason for the Bonnie and Clyde talk page to be SP'd, preventing me from responding to your supposed challenges. I did everything possible under the SP restriction to add the tag according to policy, yet good faith was not assumed in response. It's all threats and conditions, and CyclePat, especially, is not in a position to issue "requirements" or accelerated "deadlines" contrary to accepted Wikipedia practice. Is there something in the air preventing somebody from asking nicely for a summary? Seriously -- what kind of respectful response do you expect to get with such techniques, especially when all the information is already present on the talk page? I will not respond positively to threats, especially when I'm in the right on this matter. Neither will I attempt to edit an article in such a state (with such a history) without tagging and discussing. The history shows that one user will not allow the article to become something other than a POV defense of Bonnie Parker. That is documented ad nauseam in the article history and, apparently by multiple users (no, not socks), on the talk page. 216.8.14.10122:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither will I attempt to edit an article in such a state (with such a history) without tagging and discussing. The history shows that one user will not allow the article to become something other than a POV defense of Bonnie Parker.
I am following Wikipedia policy to the letter, as much as I am able given the SP of the article talk page. Fact. "So, fix it" is not a meaningful reply to all the world's ills. I am attempting to fix it, following Wikipedia guidelines and policy explicitly. Doing otherwise is futile in this case, if history and reality are any guide at all. 216.8.14.10122:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CyclePatkatefanoI echo Pat's words, list your specific issues, then I echo Kate's words: fix it, with sourcing for your "fixes. I will not interfere. You misstate the history of the Frank Hamer article - Kate thoroughly edited my work after I had made literally dozens of edits. But I abide by her decisions as fair, and reflecting a good consensus. You neglect to mention this, as you neglect to mention that your identity of Jerry Dorsen was a complete falsification. I await your list of issues with historical references and sources, as I am standing by, and waiting for your "fixing" this article you find so reprehensible. If you do not, then Pat and Kate, I ask you remove the tag. That article went a long and arduous process where everyone but pig and his plethoria of guises were satisfied. If he is not willing to list his objections, as Pat asked, or fix them, as Kate asked -- and he cannot blame me, I am standing by observing -- then remove his tag. His goal is chaos, not scholarship, trouble, not education. old windy bear22:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree some of us could do better with our conversations allusionning bad faith. I understand you are losing patient Kate but try not to bog yourself down on this one. It may be hard for our nominator to cope with the excitement of finding something, and now the idea that he may feel gang up on! Asking him to fix it might not be the best solution. I'm here to help you help us all! Let's take a step back for a moment. Okay! I'm sorry if I may have seemed rude in asking you for a summary but anyone that comes to see this article may not be able to see the issues you are trying to argue. Kate and Oldwindy you must understand that our user feels he is trying to fix the problem. He has followed wiki rules. We just can't see it right now. The problem here is that we can't see the problem unless we get a summary of the issue. It doesn't have to be big. Simply state "this line and this line are argued because of this .... and this .... etc..." A couple key points. That's all I'm asking for, a reasonable request for someone who is trying to help everyone out. And considering you have 2 editors that are familiar with this article that didn't know (perhaps now they do!) what you are talking about I find it difficult. Imagine how difficult it is for someone outside to understand why the template is there! The idea of you collaborating and writting down a summary was a request to help everyone out. I'm going to have to read through this entire comment and try to decipher the context again. Arguing symantic on arguing about arguements... It can be time consumming and many people, (that goes for the professional world) don't like to waste time. I also feel that if it isn't clear what we are arguing about then there is no reason for that template to be there! You have indicate an issue from january 15th. From what I gather you believe the problem is more about sourcing and proper WP:CITE then it is about factual accuracy? Or is it about something you have read elsewhere that contradict the content in here? No mater the case. I think the problem here is not a big problem, however if we start ordering people around and telling them what to do it may turn into some other type of problem. Necessarilly, and ironically, I have only on request, (so things may proceed smoothly) instead of me removing this info tag (note that at this point I haven't verified your comments with the article) perhap you may explain why I shouldn't remove it? (I'm trying to do this the relaxed way but you are making it difficult). Again a quick summary would be nice. --CyclePat23:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CyclePat Hi Pat -- I absolutely agree, the tagger should just come forth with a quick summary of lines which are factually in error, what is wrong, and why. My only goal is finish up the article and move on to other ones i am working on - so if he will tell you (and thereby the rest of us) why the tag is on, specifically, then i can respond appropriately, with factual information and sources, if I disagree. Pat your request is quite reasonable, and anyone acting in good faith would respond appropriately...Take care, and hope you are still feeling better, you had us concerned there for awhile! old windy bear01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CyclePat Pat, this is the 3rd day, and this guy is not going to give you even a line or two in good faith. Will you think about removing the tag, which is simpe harrassment of the rest of us who reached a good consensus on that article? old windy bear11:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That ????? thingy
I closed the debate since it was speedy deleted. When it's speedy deleted, it ends the debate. The thought is that if people have problems with it they can take it up at Deletion review. As for warning the guy, it looks like he's using a dynamic IP, which means that each time he goes online, he gets a new IP address. Means that he's almost impossible to track. :( I have a suggestion for you. Since you are starting to get into the "guts" of Wikipedia (i.e. afds), I'd suggest doing vandal patrol for awhile. WP:CVU is a good resource. It'll just teach you some basics about IPs and such...and vandals. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mediation of bonnie and clyde article
User:CyclePatUser:Katefan0Hi Pat! Hi Kate! I still encourage you to mediate the Bonnie and Clyde article, and will speak to you via email instead of creating a circus, i. e. challanging another user to sit down with people's families, etc. Just the facts! old windy bear12:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:CyclePatLet me know when to respond to specific points "raised" by pig. I have a brief summary, with cites = you don't need 5 pages of ranting to say what you can say in 5 paragraphs with citing. I will respond by email when you tell me you wish the response. old windy bear20:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation at Bonnie and Clyde
You admit that you "actually did notice mediation at the bottom", where I announce clearly 3 editors I'd accept as mediator so that Oldwindybear could choose one (or propose some to me for consideration), yet you stillwrote, "Until you clearly state that you are willing to have mediation I feel it is useless to continue on. You must first want to be able to negotiate." Yeah, that is "com fail", as you labeled your latest edit there.
You don't notice the obvious, and you argue disingenuously. There -- two huge reasons, in response to your direct question (so please don't start with WP:NPA hurling), why I will not accept you as a mediator. You don't seriously think I'm unaware of your prior behavior at Wikipedia, do you? Want another reason? In attempting to inculcate yourself as a "mediator", you issued many veiled threats against me, yet you ask, "Why do you wish to have a different mediator?" I'll answer that: Because I live on planet earth.
Unlike Oldwindybear, I'm not interested in having somebody on my "side". I'm interested in somebody who can objectively and intelligently swim in fine detail (somebody, in other words, not obsessed with "refactoring" in the middle of an argument of complex detail), then come out on the side of Wikipedia's core article policies, without exception. My agenda is for strict adherence to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and clear writing without errors whether in fact or formatting. If it means I'm wrong, I want to know it. One potential mediator I proposed, I've never even talked to, or seen before. I have no idea of his opinion on Bonnie and Clyde, if he even holds one. However, he did write on his talk page an explicit opinion indicating that he agrees in principle with Oldwindybear's core thesis. Why do I still approve of him as a mediator? Because neither my thesis (indicated as obvious opinion in the latter part of the section "Recent editing", and clearly not intended for inclusion in the article) nor Oldwindybear's has any place in this article, except as it agrees with the thesis of an authoritative, external, cited source, displayed in proportion with NPOV. Obvious as it is, you haven't yet noticed that I'm not proposing extra verbiage for the article, as your continued straw man touting of a supposed requirement for "A" and "B" examples implies. I advocate the objective gutting of all uncited opinion and slop. There is no "B" there. The "B" is absence.
No, you continue openly as an advocate for an editor rather than for Wikipedia, and things will be just fine. The record shows that I have publicly offered the other principal disputant a choice of 3 mediators, encouraging him to return with counteroffers or ask for more proposals if none of those is acceptable. You, having already been explicitly rejected, are not a counteroffer. Upon my announcement that you will not be a mediator in this dispute, Oldwindybear continued pushing you. Far from good faith, it's the furtherance of a mission to keep the article a soapbox for original thought. Oldwindybear hasn't understood that from his first appearance at there, and apparently still doesn't. If a vociferous editor doesn't understand and honor WP:NOR/WP:NPOV (among others), the TotallyDisputed tag isn't going away. That's Wikipedia policy, not my opinion. 216.8.14.18823:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.
I'm just asking you to review your vote in the discussion, it doesn't seem to fit in with the article or the nomination. - Hahnchen22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userpage
Looks like you have an extra "=" in the heading About My company CyclePat's=. Thought I'd let you know (rather than edit your userpage which is bad form IMO).--Isotope2301:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The context here is that we have a big problem with images which are falsely asserted as fair-use. Per image and copyright policy Google Maps images are fair-use only in the article on Google Maps, although this is widely misunderstood (same with magazine covers, they are only fair use in articles on the magazine, we are forever having to delete them from other articles, especially Time covers). The same will apply to other satellite maps: they are not free, and the standard fair-use disclaimer does not apply any more than it would to a photograph; Snowdon's photographs can be used in the article on Lord Snowdon, but not elsewhere unless explicitly released by him into the public domain. The image from the yearbook was apparently mis-tagged (GFDL, whereas it is probably from a copyright work). JKelly is trying to fix the image problems, and incidentally apparently a para which was difficult. I'm happy to talk about it, but the images are unquestionably unfree, and we are on a mission to purge those out. There is a fuller description from JKelly on my Talk page. Just zis Guy you know?08:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I look back with nostalgia at our past disputes - they were so much less complex than the mess of POV-pushing nonsense I am constantly drawn into now! Remote viewing and other such lunacy - bring back the easy calls! Just zis Guy you know?11:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nunavut citation
You asked for a citation for the previously missing Nunavut region in Google Earth. Anyone who used Google Earth noticed it when it hadn't been fixed yet, and this page mentions the fact.
How is your investigation going?
How is your investigation into the Wolokcase going? I am anxious to see if you reach the same conclusions that you insinuated at User talk:HappyCamper. As you may see if you read his responses on that talk page, accusations like yours have been quite hurtful. So if your investigation does not turn up evidence against HappyCamper, you might consider making a new less sarcastic and inflammatory statement there. Perhaps even an apology. -lethetalk+16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.
the freakofnurture is in direct violation of the above.
There has been quite a bit of controversy regarding three articles and one user that is resulting in the destruction of articles.
One article, "Foundation for A Course In Miracles", was merged with A_course_in_miracles. I was not watching the article at the time and the merge passed a vote. None of the editors working on this material now know much about the material. One administrator suggested that I request that the article be re-instated:
"I don't know enough about the the ACIM community to know the proper place of the FACIM material. The merge was performed due to the outcome of an AfD. However the Fad was irregular and a good case could be made at WP:DR. I suggest that you draw up a case for its recreation as a separate article. I'd support it, as it appears to an outsider as an stand-alone topic. -Will Be back 04:27, 19 July 2006 (TC)" [[8]]
Hi Pat, I live in the US and am interested in a power assisted bike. It seems you are not active now but if you return, I wonder if you could help?—Who12316:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Thunderhead, Thank you. I have listed that article under prod. Perhaps it may be a candidate for speedy delete? --CyclePat12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David L Cook Article/Wikipediatrix
CyclePat, we are having a continual problem with one of the editors by the name of Wikipediatrix. She continues to go through our contributions and makes edits to everything that we have posted. There is not a problem with that and we invite her contributions, however she gets way to personal into them. She tags everything and does not give any reason of why she is tagging something. She has had many run ins with other editors and administrators about her editing. They have told her to stop tagging without explaining why she is doing so. She ignores this admonishment and continues to do so. When we asak her why she tags things she goes on to tell us to stop berating her and just make the changes? How can one do this? We have cited things and she has gone right behind us and removed them and asked for cites again. This last time we edited the David L Cook article and took the stuff out that she had tagged and she went right back added the edits back onto the article and then removed them again? We are at our witts end with this woman. She has turned this into a personal issue. She is not nice to anyone who questions her and finally, she does not explain herself or her edits and tags. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a community that works together. If she sees something wrong what would it hurt her to be a good editor and fix it? Not her! She tags it and then gets upset when questioned. We need help. We would prefer to have her blocked from our articles so that she cannot continue to do this to us. We have no problem with someone wanting to edit or give suggestions, we just do not have time to continue to bicker with this woman who is seemingly on a Rambo quest. Thank you for any help you can give us. IAMAS Corporation 15:52 22, Aug 2006 (UTC)
Hello CyclePat! Or, for a different view of the matter, you might take a look here and here and here and here and most importantly, here.
Thank you for the links! Can you please sign you name next time wikipediatrics! My comment is posted on the articles web-page.
Bonjour Pat! Il si bon pour trouver un autre Wikipedian qui parle français. j'ai juste voulu m'arrêter près parce que je suis dans le grand besoin de parler français avec quelqu'un autre que ma famille! --Sylvia01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've been improving on my English. I don't need a translator as much now. Thanks. I don't have an e-mail but I live in Manitoba. --Sylvia (using her IP while it's 12:42 our time.)
David L Cook Article
CyclePat, thank you for your support with this article. I am the one who created this article and I have had nothing but problems with Wikipediatrix since day one. She is rude and instead of her trying to help in the editing or going to the talk page to ask questions, she just goes to the article and starts putting tags all over the place. I have tried to be nice to her and ask for help, but instead she runs to her editing friends and has them back her up. This is unfair. If you look at her talk page you will see that I am not the only editor that she does this to. Her talk pages are full of people who are always calling her out for her tagging without editing or explaination. I set up the account under Iamascorp and I was not aware that I could not contribute as a represetative of a company. I have set up a new account as they have asked me to do. They have tagged the article for IAMAS Corporation saying that it may be a hoax article? The IAMAS Corporation is a media company that operates overseas as well as in the United States. They have said that the web page for IAMAS does not use the word corporation? On the webpage it clearly states that {we+The IAMAS Corporation only use IAMAS when talking about our learning institutions. We use corporation when it comes to the various locations throughout the United States. They never went to the talk page to ask about the company format or how it was set up, instead they tagged it with a Hoax tag? This seems to be more of a witch hunt to me and not an effort to contribute to good wikipedia. I am at the point where I just want to remove the articles that I have written. Even as of today, Wikipediatrix has gone onto the David L Cook page and has placed more cite markers and has totally removed all of his discography and filmography. That information was contributed from what the IAMAS Corporation has on file for David. The company did not write the article, I did. I know these contributions are facts because we were involved in the developement and successes of this artist. I just do not understand this womans quest. I do not think it is to contribute to excellence here. I feel it is a quest for her now! I am pleading for some help here. If you know of a way that I can wikify this and the other articles so that she has no standing on editing them any longer. If I could word them in a way that takes control away from her I would surely love to do that. If you could help I would surely be in debt to you. Thank you in advance to your attention and concern. Junebug52 3:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello CyclePat. I want to thank you for your attention to the article and trying to calm the waters. She went onto the article and deleted David L Cook's discography as well as filmography. I have ggogled and found many references to several of the albums and recordings that were included on the references. I am just so tired of that one editor and I am ready to just thorw up my hands. I know that if I restore the discography and filmography, she will just deleted it again. It just makes me so mad. Maybe she will find another article to make her pet project so she will eave us alone? Thank you so much and if you come up with any ides, please let me know.. Junebug52 3:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Crop Circles
I'm looking for help with the crop circle article. Seems that there is a group determined to keep the scientific evidence out of the article. If you read the article it is clear that all crop circles are man made, and only at the end is there a suggestion that something anomalous is going on. I don't know where you should start, if you want to help, perhaps the beginning of the last archived talk page would be good. Or just read anything. I am presently adding information about the scientific aspect which they revert daily. So I keep adding different scientific versions and they will keep deleting it. I think I got them in a trap. I don't know what your feelings are about crop circles, but if you study them it is clear there is more to them than what the hoaxers tell us. You sem to be intelligent and will listen to reason. Would you like to help me?
In regard to the KOME article, first of all, I don't see why you seem to be so concerned about it. You have contributed nothing to it. And there was certainly not a flame war going on there, so I ahve no idea why you are jumping to such conclusions. I simply tried to clean the article up and make it more readable. No arguments, until you came along trying to stir up nonsense.
And I'm a little disturbed that you seem to be 'cyberstalking' me. The picture notices on my userpage are automatically generated by Wikipedia, not by other users, and they're none of your business. I would think you'd know that, since you seem to position yourself as an authority on everything. And quite frankly, I got wrapped up in other things that I felt like doing rather than respond to someone who I had never been in contact with before 'calling me out'.
Sorry for the overly harsh tone, but you have been way out of line. And you call ME a troll? HOW DARE YOU! Perhaps, since you seem to be obsessed with my every move, you should check my complete edit history at Wikipedia. I have over a thousand edits, with no warnings whatsoever (save for accidentally forgetting to put a tag on a few pictures).
Since you have contributed absolutely NOTHING to the article in question, get off my back until you do. If you think you can write a better article on it than me, by all means do so. I'm washing my hands of the article, since it seems to disturb you so much. In the meantime, unless you have something constructive to contribute to the article, stop spamming my userpage! Due to your rude manner, I owe you nothing. And if you persist, I will notify the administrators.--Fightingirish19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the ridiculous (a whole screenful) number of tags you put on that article. Please discuss them on the talk page before putting any back. Thanks, Storkk10:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent Help Needed, please
Hello, I have a little problem with some articles and with a "special" user called "Hookrej". He/She is always reverting edits so the page looks like he/she desires, as if it were his/her fansite, bloding #1 positions even though it violates the Neutral View Policy, ordering charts according to peaks so it's harder to find a specific peak, ordering according to supposed "importance", etc. And when he/she reverts my edits, his/her summary is: "STOP! VANSALISM!!" and I'm sure that what I've done is definately not vandalism. Can you help me please?
Here's the current main article (we've been disputing with P!nk's articles mostly): U + Ur Hand (take a look at the Histoy). Thanks a lot for your help in advanced DanV05:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp2320:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I placed the following note on the article Talk page. If you have any thoughts, please put a note on my talk page. Thanks.
"I have continued with my interest in purchasing a bike or converting my old bike. At this point in time I am thinking about buying a "Giant Suede E electric bike" from NYCEWHEELS. I know that WP is not for advertising but this topic is so obscure that it is hard to find information. You may wish to include Giant and EZ as manufacturers at least. I am not affiliated with any of these companies. I am just trying to find the best bike for me."—Who12318:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those links you warned Harrison about
Are specifically addressed in ArbCom rulings and can be removed anywhere at anytime. Do not restore them as it is considered vandalism per the ArbCom. --Tbeatty17:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could be blocked for disruption if you continue. It is perfectly appropriate for an administrator to replace the contents of a user page with a notice saying that the user has been indefinitely blocked. AnnH♫17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my position on the matter. You may respond there and join Cplot to the case if you wish. Tbeatty's statement is a bit more expansive than our ruling as interpreted in practice. Fred Bauder19:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Fred but I don't understand the relevance of the example you have given. It actually shows user cplot adding information, specifically URL links and his opinion on CIA stuff regarding wikipedia, to is own user talk page. I really don't see what is wrong with that, but, allegedly, according to Tbeatty, this can be removed. However, removing the information from cplot talk page, as I have pointed out, violated WP:VAND and should be considered vandlism. Hence, I would like to see the Arbcom decission that indicates these urls should be removed. Can you please give me a link to the precedence. We could then fix the WP:VAND page to explain this exception. --CyclePat21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder this to, event hough AN/I supported the block in full, cplot came back with sockpuppets instead of just settling down during his block, and eventually it was discovered was not followinbg WP:AGF by tagging articles as under the control of the government, then further tagging people, including myself oddly, as being government agents. So how did you stumble on cplot because he has not posted here, you did not post on his talk page, and I can't find a case open/close/etc on AMA from cplot requesting help. --NuclearZer019:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The request was direct email on the 29th of November 18:47 GMT as per the first paragraph on AMA request for assistance procedures [9] If you are alluding that cplot avoided his block by contacting me, I think that would be a pretty big fishing expedition. Essentially he contacted me from the list of AMA Members [10] prior to being indefinatelly blocked. I am attempting to guide cplot in understanding wiki-rules so we could resolve the primary POV dispute at the september 11, 2001 article and the escalating conflict in civility. Though cplot may have some wild though for the article I am also constructivelly trying to communicate that general acceptance on wikipedia is an important thing to consider. He indicated he was blocked because he violated blocking rules... essentially he didn't know what happened, because it happened so fast. He demonstrates some signs of paranoi towards you guys because of what happened. He also appologized for any trouble he has caused in escalating the lack of civility at 9/11 with Mongo. He denies that he has sockpuppets... but he admits that his friends are doing this. This link show what appears to be conversation between the IP and usercplot.[11] Meaning IP 70.8.150.242 and 68.30.146.202 are important to this. I think he still feels he could contribute pro-activelly to wikipedia and it is my impression that he could probably easily do so with a little guidance. I would suggest (hopefully he is reading this) that if he has any concerns (ie.: I could imagine such as with the Iraq war and the soon to be release documents... it's tomorow right?) he should voice them through me for the next week. --CyclePat01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is on a fishing expedition. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot is a lot of disruption. He's not coming back as a reformed user anytime soon. But you can do your own check if you have his email. Check the IP from email header from the mail he sent you. I don't want his email address, just his IP which is in the header. There are two outcomes you can confirm:
1) It's not the range of IP's that's trolling and that will be confirmed from checkuser
Well I checked and most of them return to what I believe is the wikimail. But I did receive one in the 17.250.xxx.xxx range. --CyclePat07:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tbeatty. I searched a little harder and found a more suitable IP that, at first glance, appears to be in the range of suspected trolling. I'm not 100% sure yet! We can conduct further investigation. I'm debating on sending you this information because I think it may mean a permanent ban of that IP address on wiki. If it is cplot, which may be determined by our cumulated research, then wiki rules may strike with furour. The only real remedy I can think of, is if it is cplot, that he send an email to me explaining what he has done and that we ask for leniency on his punishement. In that case I would suggest we NOT make that curteousy phone call to his Internet Service Provider (as per most internet service agreement contracts there are many legal obligations which some people often forget about. A ban and discontinuation of his internet service may ensue for breaching his contract.) What will we will have accomplished? I think it is important to have a direction and state it so any suckpuppet knows the concequence. I think I've stated a couple here right! p.s.: I noticed a bunch of reverts, would the person posting all those messages please stop. I check my history. If you really want you can also send me an email from my user page. thank you!--CyclePat01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CyclePat; I unblocked Cplot, and then immediately reblocked him for using IP's to evade a block, abuseive sockpuppeting, and disruption. If you have any complaints about that, use dispute resolution. Tom HarrisonTalk03:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny Tom, I can't seem to find any evidence of what you are talking about. I'm not an administrator and can't see who blocked who but last I remember it was Mongo that blocked cplot for a silly addition of usebaca to the article 9/11 (All while a silly dispute was happening in between the two users). In fact, I checked [[12]] and cplot has not made any edits since december 1st. I'dd like to get this strait. When exactly did you block cplot? Are you refering to cplot 3RR revert, which happened several days prior to Mongo's block? When did you immediately relblock him for using IP's to evade a block? (I though that was Mongo that did that as he is the one that posted the indefinate block on cplot's user page and furthermore indicated that he blocked him indefinatelly!) All I see is maybe a 3RR block which you may have done several days prior to Mongo's block. (Which, as the advocat for cplot, I would like to say, cplot still believes is unfair.) Could you please enlighten me because I feel prety stupid right now with all these questions. --CyclePat05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any use can look at someone's block log. Go to their contributions page and at the top it says (for example) CyclePat (Talk | Block log | Logs). The block log show the blocking admin and the reason they gave. There is also a link to Cplot's block log in both block templates posted to User:Cplot. Hope this helps. Thatcher13112:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cplot
Cplot's ban has wide support among admins, if he wants it lifted I'm afraid it will have to go to ArbCom, and I don't hold out much hope. The user seems quite incapable of making a neutral edit or interacting in an acceptable manner with people whose views he does not share (which means most people). Guy (Help!) 08:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - at the AMA, we've had one or two opinions presented of your handling of Cplot's case (which, I understand, you took by email). Would you care to take a look at the concerns raised on WT:AMA, and give us your insight. It's been commented that your adovcating style may be a little too aggressive at times - AGF, be civil, make no attacks and try not to get stressed. Hopefully we'll be able to get this matter resolved quickly and painlessly, but for now, can I ask you to postpone actions with Cplot, just while the ground settles :). Thanks, Martinp2314:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC) PS - could you create a case page about the case at WP:AMAREQ, for posterity?[reply]
Thank you Martin. I'm glad to see there is a consensus that there is a Cplot case. I am also glad to see that some people have expressed concerns and that they would like to give some feedback. I can understand why you are attempting to cite certain guidelines and wiki regulations but I highly doubt those actions are a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Not going into much detail because I truly feel that this warrants an RfC, I would like to indicate that this has been postponed since December 1st - That's 20 days. I understand your concern for letting the ground settle but I too must attempt to tame the storms and ensure that the waters don't get any worse. If you truly wish to discuss this matter you will assist in seconding an RfC. (Whether it be called MONGO3 or Cplot or C’MON (That name would be funny no?) is truly indifferent, I truly believe that having an RfC will be prove that they may have been some unjust in the initial block for Cplot. Nevertheless, I also believe that having an RfC will prove many other things including sockpupetteering on behalf of Cplot to avoid a block. I think an RfC will reveal certain unjust actions by administrators. Finally, I believe that an RfC may also demonstrate a possible need to improve the wiki blocking process. And how someone can fight the block when the original administrator doesn't agree with him, or after he has been desysopsed. This is my brief for the Cplot case. I will give evidence during the RfC (so this is not a violation of WP:AGF). What it appears to be for me is an offensive (changing the subject toward my procedures), because of a resentment. I am after all helping out a wikipedian that is despised because he has been labelled a sockpuppet. The wiki community should stand towards understanding the down side of our current blocking system and the possibility that unjust may occur. They should also know what to do in such a circumstance. Furthermore, Advocates should not necessarily be concerned about prosperity (as per AMA guidelines), I usually work via email and direct communications, and I am truly unfamiliar on making an AMA case page. For these reasons I do not believe in utilising the AMA case page and think all comments should be directed towards the RfC. Again, I am pleased with AMA services (Though this is a little biased) and hope we will get to the bottom of this blocking/sockpuppet case. There obviously appears to be enough community uproar to warrant an RfC on the subject (I believe Tbeatty, Cplot and I agree on this). --CyclePat17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments on ANI. And I don't know what "community uproar" you are referring to. The conduct of Cplot and his multiple sockpuppets has been outrageous. Newyorkbrad16:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CyclePat, what do you think an RFC would achieve? Correct me if I'm wrong, but (1) every single person to address this issue other than yourself and a variety of CPlot socks thinks that CPlot should be indefinitely banned, and (2) even the initial MONGO ban has been widely supported. So an RFC would get you a bunch of opinions that CPlot should go away and never come back, and even if it gave some cautionary advice to MONGO (unlikely, IMHO), it wouldn't matter, because MONGO's not an admin. Assuming that an RFC won't get CPlot back on Wikipedia (which it won't) and won't change MONGO's conduct as an admin (which it obviously can't), what is the point of it? Spite on the part of CPlot? If so, I would recommend that you do it on behalf of yourself and not AMA. Thanks, TheronJ18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cplot beleives that the initial block was unjustified and that anything afterwards would be causational. My main question remains, if the original block was unjust, does it justify the use of sockpuppets. Obviously not really, but can we empathise and understand why there may have been sockpuppets during the block. Of course! Was it the correct way of doing thing. No! An RfC will show this. But it will also demonstrate that the block has been partially unsuscessfull do to the lack of communication and an escalation of uncivility. (as per to be demonstrated by evidence in an RfC) I've indicated that an RfC appears to be the next logical step towards possibly unblocking Cplot. Prior to going to an Arbcom (which appears to be what you are suggesting). If you wish I can send you my 5 page email and analysis on the subject. --CyclePat18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cplot was blocked twice by JoshuaZ before MONGO, and I don't think you could ask for a fairer-minded admin than Joshua. Cplot disrupted several articles by inserting grossly biased content, asserted that NPOV tags must be placed because they did not match his POV, and trolled ridiculously about "Federal clowns" editing Wikipedia when he was blocked. Here is a standard sample edit: [13]. We have had a very lengthy debate on Talk about whether Jones is a conspiracy theorist, and the statement is sourced to a high standard. MONGO's block was righteous, and in any case was posted for review at the time (the record is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive150). The only way to get Cplot unblocked is to take it to ArbCom. And I don't hold out much hope. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, I'd be happy to take a look at your e-mail and give you some suggestions.
IMHO, an RFC will never do any good. The vast majority of people will conclude that (1) MONGO's initial block was justified or substantially justified and (2) CPlot should be indefinitely banned in any case for misconduct. They will all be dismissed as rouge admins and friends of MONGO. A small minority of respondents will say that MONGO is bad and/or that CPlot should have another chance. They will be dismissed as ED trolls and CPlot sockpuppets. No outcome of the RFC will convince anyone, anywhere, to change their mind even one iota, including me, you and Cplot.
I am also very sceptical of Cplot's chances at arb comm. If you do decide to prepare an arb comm case, I recommend that you do it on a scratch pad first, so that you can get comments and suggestions -- most submissions crash and burn because the submitter doesn't present enough evidence in a convincing way, and would have benefitted from a week of reflection and editing.
IMHO, no one is going to care that Cplot felt that MONGO wronged him and therefore engaged in his campaign of harassment and sockpuppetry. Instead, they are going to conclude that even when users think they're wronged, they need to avoid misconduct. Therefore, if Cplot wants to come back, he needs to address the underlying problem -- his misconduct.
Again, IMHO, the only slim chance Cplot would have would be for you to approach the blocking admin (Tom Harrison) and explain that Cplot (1) understands that his conduct was wrong, (2) promises not to do it again, (3) wants to be a constructive contributor, and (4) is willing to accept probation and a mentor if unblocked. If Cplot was convincing enough, people might let him in regardless of whether MONGO's blocks were justified or not.
I agree with substantially all of what Guy and TheronJ have written. Moreover, this edit which I just reverted from an arbitrator's page is the sort of thing that CheckUser-confirmed Cplot socks have been spamming across the project. Advocacy is a wonderful thing but I submit there is no case to be made on behalf of this user. Newyorkbrad23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has CyclePat told Cplot to knock it off? One wonders if he's providing effective assistance, or is he's actually in cahoots with Cplot's harassment. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per my best friends advice. I am going to the bathroom to take a nice warm buble bath for a couple hours. I'll be locking the door to think over a couple things, I may take a Christmas break as well. But, please Asume good faith here. If you trully wish to know the entire story I think an RfC (whether it be on me, on cplot, on Mongo, or on AMA) would be the ideal. (I usually don't go placing evidence talk pages because usually this is "the first step" towards conflict resolution inbetween 1 or 2 people. (Helps, concentrate the conversation in one place). Currently I have my hands full with 2 AMA cases. I think I have enough trouble trying to help cplot understand the rules, let alone the comments that fail to suggest any solutions ((wich I have already sugested to cplot... To stop with the sockpuppets)). My analysis of the situation, I believe only points towards an RfC. Though, I actually think creating a page on AMA is a good proposal and I may just do that. I'll need to think about a couple things. I'll see you guys after mi wiki-break. And, just in case I go on wiki-vacation Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. ((p.s.: I will advise you if this happens and attempt to assign an interim advocate in the mean time)) --CyclePat20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
