Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Cplot

Case Filed On: 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

• Cplot (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• MONGO (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• September 11, 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

• Answer: yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

• Answer: Dispute based on policy violation WP:BLOCK, a content dispute, and a recent ArbCom.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

• Answer: Conversation on users page, ANI, further discussion on my talk page, email advocacy with Cplot.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: Assistance in evaluting my data in regards to this case.

Summary:

Cplot is blocked around november 30th 2006 under a contreversial block by MONGO due to the user content dispute with the article september 11, 2001. The block doesn't appear to be justified at "first." The block is extended to an indefinate block for sockpuppeteering (which is justified). Later on, emails and communication with me reveals that he was in fact sockpuppeteering. The original block still appears to have been an abuse of administrative powers. I have begun the first steps of evidence for an RfC. And Cplot wishes to demonstrate that the administrators are like meatpuppets that had no reason to block him at first. I am currently advocating for Cplot because he is blocked indefinatelly. --CyclePat 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC) CyclePat is not Cplot's advocate. CyclePat ceased being Cplot's advocate some time ago.

Discussion:

user conduct dispute

• Incivility on behalf of MONGO (escalates the situation) at September 11, 2001 article. [1][2]

  Those are exmaples of my incivility?--MONGO 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Mongo's edit history from approx. 22:52, November 28, 2006 reveals that the request for comment on Cplot's block was after the fact[3].
• My first attempt to mediate as an AMA member fails and is even scene as "disruptive" according to MONGO. [4] (conversation on the POV regarding article September 11, 2001) If trying to talk about something using a 3rd party advocate is disruptive what else is disruptive for MONGO?
• MONGO's page appears to be trolled by Cplot [5]
• MONGO explains the issues of disruption. [6]
• MONGO extends the block to indefinite because Cplot is sockpuppeteering [7][8].
• Again the [Requests comments on Cplot's block is only after the fact[9].
• Cplot is confirmed to be sockpuppeteering via CheckUser, Spelling, IP Check, personnal emails. (see Cplot's user page and allegeded sockpuppets)
• Most of the sockpuppets, after this point, are not dennied by Cplot and are in fact confirmed to be Cplot's via a couple personnal emails to me from Rob (Cplot) and user IP check.

• Cplot admits to some of the disruptive behaviour, claiming his friends are responsible for other parts, and doesn't know what else to do to prove his point that there was an abuse of admin powers for this block?
• I recomend several solutions. Including: Creating a new account (since he has already admitted to sockpuppets) and beginning an RfC explaining what has happened (alleged abuse of power).
  • After many attempts to persuad Cplot to do something else and explaining the general rules, On december 27th I specifically quote the rules and send to him by email. "Your initial block may not be justified... but your continued sockpuppets or your friends sockpuppets, which according to WP:SOCK, would be the same as if you did it [10] is an avoidance or circumvention [11] and disruption that is blockable for generally any extended period of time." Per wiki rules WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks and WP:SOCK your block can be extended. I then stated the rule:

"A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page. An admin may restart the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the original block if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked. Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted. (Admins can revert all edits from blocked users and re-make the good edits under their own names, to avoid confusing other admins who may be monitoring the same users.)"

Disruption

This is a simple case of disruption that outed a troll. Cplot started this by tagging articles with a non-existent category, USEBACA. He claims that this is a "United States Executive Branch Agent Controlled Article." This is, of course, patent nonsense. He was told to stop these disruptive edits. He continued. He was blocked for a short period of time for disruption. He went on his sockpuppet rampage continuing to disrupt and make accusations against editors. His ban was made permanent for this and it has wide support among administrators and the community. To this day, he continues to use sock puppets to edit Wikipedia.

MONGO's initial block was appropriate. His follow-up ban was appropriate. His posting to AN/I was approrpiate and his actions supported. Tom Harrison took over responsibility for the ban. Cplot deserves his permanent ban. He earned it and he is solely responsible for it. --Tbeatty 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Cplot has done little aside from creating a sock army endlessly since he was blocked...I just got through tagging another sock of his...must be almost 50 of them by now. The only thing Cplot deserves is to have his ISP revoke his service.--MONGO 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Advocate's Closing remarks

I agree with your observations about Cplot using socks. Nevertheless I haven't heard from Cplot in a long time. I've offered my suggestions and that is the best we can do as AMA. I'm not here to spoon feed a complaint and drag it to ARBcom. I can only suggest certain venues of resolutions and for me I guess that means "we" (I and probably most people) don't personnally feel like opening this up. Think of it like all the PCB's that are at the bottom of the Great Lakes. We've cleaned up the polluted water, but way below in the murquy mude lies a possible deadly sludge which shouldn't be disturbed. Let the sludge rest and let the people enjoy the new fresh clean water which lies above it! Swimming can still be enjoyable for everyone, just don't dive to the bottom of the lake. Given the present situation, that I haven't heard from Cplot, I think, he can deal with his troubles. I've advise him on what to do. I've told him where to go if he feel that there was something wrong. As I've indicated, if he really wants to follow proper mediation and dispute resolution I've given him the proper advice. I consider this case closed. I'm going to go enjoy my swim now in the clean water. --CyclePat 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

• Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

• Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

• Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

• Answer:

AMA Information

Case Status: closed

See above comment --CyclePat 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Advocate Status: Thanks for filling this out, CyclePat. Martinp23 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)