Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Cplot
Case Filed On: 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedian filing request:
Other Wikipedians this pertains to:
Wikipedia pages this pertains to:
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 (Cplot's advocate) reveal 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)
Discussion:
user conduct dispute
- Incivility on behalf of MONGO (escalates the situation) at September 11, 2001 article. [1][2]
- Mongo's edit history from 22:52, November 28, 2006 reveals that the request for comment on Cplot's block was after the fact.
- My first attempt to mediate as an AMA member fails and is even scene as "disruptive" according to MONGO. [3] (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 explains the issues being of disruption. [4]
- MONGO extends the block to indefinite because Cplot is sockpuppeteering [5].
- He again requests comments on the block only after the fact. [6] * Cplot is confirmed to be sockpuppeteering. Cplot's user page
- A lot of the sockpuppets after this point are not dennied and confirmed to be Cplot's via a couple personnal emails to me from cplot and user IP check. (He admits and doesn't know what else to do to prove his point?)
- I recomend several solution. Including: Creating a new account (since he has already admitted to sockpuppets) and beginning an RfC explaining what has happened (alleged abuse of power).
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: Template:AMA case status
Advocate Status:
- None assigned.