User talk:CyclePat - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CyclePat (talk | contribs) at 07:44, 8 September 2007 (archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:44, 8 September 2007 by CyclePat (talk | contribs) (archive)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to my talk page! Please visit my company's webpage at CyclePat.ca.

Archives

A-101: Sep 2005 - Jan 29 2006

A-102: Jan 29 2006 - Jan 13 2007

A-103: Jan 13 2007 - Apr 10 2007

A-104: Apr 10 2007 - Apr 12 2007

A-105: Apr 13 2007 - May 29 2007

A-106: May 30 2007 - Sep 8 2007

History - Archives by permanent link

In Ottawa it is currently Sunday 19 January, 12:08 (EDT).

"I may eventually get back to you. However, if it's past midnight, I might be sleeping! Shssh! Type quietly."

Here's a great idea

Try this: never mention AMA ever again, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, to anybody, not even in private conversations. See if you can do that. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cycle.....

CyclePat, Pelase stop bringing me up in the issue to restore the AMA. I did nothing wrong, and I had the support of the community as well. I don't iwsh to be in a dispute with you. Everything was for the good of Misplaced Pages and is fully in good faith. Please live and let live and move on to other more positive and worthwhile things then the AMA before this gets any bigger. (There is plenty to do on Misplaced Pages not just AMA) Good luck. Æon 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well

The thing is, Pat, you are a good user. That's why you've been given alot of leeway. But that goodwill can go away if you continue. As Guy said, just avoid AMA. I know you have alot of interests. Go back to one of them. I've had disagreements with you in the past, but you are a good user and a good man. Just steer clear from trouble for awhile. Misplaced Pages is vast. There's lots out there that you can help with. Try one of the cleanup projects. --Woohookitty 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Woohookitty, I have been trying to clean the project sticking to the main idea "Sources" "references" and "no original research". But, 1, 2 & 3 people with similar ideas (all posting in a row on my talk page). I once had someone warn me about my X-girl friend but didn't listen. This seems even more complicated than that! (lol) :) (seriously though, that was a sad story if ever you want to hear it send me an email). If that's the case I should be on a jet plane or, running, swimming, flying whatever the other way! Despite this fact, there is a particular something that keeps me from leaving the AMA too quickly. I think I may have expressed it on JzG's page. Thank you again Woohoo. --CyclePat 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) p.s.: Hopefully, if I'm ever blocked in the future for something "disruptive" it's not for more than 72 hours (boy that last block felt long).

Misplaced Pages:Historical Pages

Pat, it's dead. Trying again under different names isn't going to change anything. --Calton | Talk 00:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The AMA

Cycle, IT IS DEAD. Let it rest in peace before the community steps in and does something about it. They have already said it is dead and basily said good ridence. Trying to bring it up again and again and again is only going to make this into a bigger production than it already has become. So let it rest......the AMA was basicly on life support and the community pulled the plug on AN/IÆon 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to your essay, it appears that you don't wish to assume good faith. As a result I hav efiled this RfC on you. Please review it thankyou Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cyclepat Æon 02:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's it. is the last straw, I'm afraid. With a heavy heart I have blocked you for disruption and trolling; I will be more than happy to unblock you as soon as you give a categorical undertaking to cease your campaign in respect of AMA. It has gone way past the point of a well-intentioned annoyance. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) Hello Guy, and thank you for your concerns regarding my most posting of a request for review from an administrator. He had deleted my essay. You will notice that he did reply in a fairly civil manner and that our good faith attempt to have a discussion was pretty much going well. (until I was recently blocked for allegedly trolling) If you wish, how about we talk about what you consider to be the main issue (the AMA historical page and my campaign) tomorrow on my RfC. (I assume that is what you would like to see... some centralized discussion. Well, it's what I would like to see anyways regarding the AMA closure) In the mean time I would like to point out to you that it is customary (most Wikipedians agree per their/our adopted policies such as WP:CON) that the first step in finding out why your article was deleted is to discuss it over with the administrator that deleted the page... (that prior to any official deletion reviews or wasting time in an RfC!). Again, lets talk tomorrow after my convocation for graduation or the Senators game... actually better yet... maybe Wednesday since I'm so busy! --CyclePat 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We had the discussion. Several of them. It's over, you need to drop it. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Guy, your recent actions confuse me. On one hand you are blocking my account, which warrants, I believe, at minimum a proper discussion. However in you recent statement on my talk page you are indicating that the discussion is over. Before you think I'm jumping the gun here, please allow me to explain why I believe what you are doing is not fair. According to WP:BLOCK "Blocks are used in order to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users." Now of course you could argue that this block is "for my own good and to prevent me from editing WP:AMA." I actually agree with this idea and previously thanked you for taking the initiative to protect the WP:AMA pages from being edited. This may have saved me from violating other wikipedia rules. Nevertheless I think this is trully an issue of content. You wish to have the AMA considered historical and I don't. May I guide you towards wikipedia's blocking policy, WP:BLOCK, which states "Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Misplaced Pages and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruptive behaviour should not typically be used in response to isolated instances of behaviour, but in response to persistent patterns of behaviour." Had I continued to edit the AMA then perhaps that could be considered "disruptive". But I didn't instead, decided to campaign, to ask questions and try to resolve some issues. (Which you consider trolling) So, we've had some time to cool-down... a type of cool-down block we could say, despite the fact that these type of blocks according to blocking policy shouldn't be used. Nevertheless, I trust this demonstrates my understanding and ability to act responsibly. But back to the main issue. What happens is, what we have is a conflict in regulations. I have already explained to you my views in regards to historical pages. For reference purposes I will explain once more what, I believe, is the main issue. As per WP:PG#Historical a historical page should follow the process of proposals (primary issue), and secondaly even though it is or maybe a historical page it is always possible to "campaign" to re-open that page. WP:PG actually states:

 "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out
 for whatever reason. Historical pages also include any process no longer in use, or any non-recent     
 log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them."

I even started writting an essay on this but it was removed (hence the reason you should probably already know my view on the subject). I do not see my actions as being trollish and would appreciate if you reconsidered the block.

Trully Patrick

Advocare te tubidare --CyclePat 15:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal: you stop agitating about AMA, you get unblocked. You keep agitating about AMA, you stay blocked. Binary choice. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Guy, Well I'm not sure where we're going to end up with this but here it is. (And I know you don't really like quotes right from the start but I feel this is the best way to explain things). According to Misplaced Pages "In extortion, the victim is threatened to hand over goods, or else damage to their reputation or other harm or violence against them may occur." According to you if I "stop agitating about AMA, get unblocked. keep agitating about AMA, stay blocked. Binary choice." If I was to compare Misplaced Pages's definition of extortion with your request I believe we could say: both are binary choices and both involve a threat to hand over goods or services or else damage may occur. Perhaps there are even more similarities with these two terms but that's not what I'm here to argue.

According to Misplaced Pages there is a term call "psychological coercion" which includes "purposeful threats of rejection from or disapproval by a peers group, or even mere anger or displeasure." What I fear is that the methods which you are using are becoming mixed and confused with the main issue; which is "the block" of my user account for alleged "trolling". Allow me to explain the problem in better details. Essentially, your logic "a sort of ultimatum" may be serving you as some sort of justification for a conclusion or a type of Argumentum ad baculum.

   If x does not accept P as true, then Q.
   Q is a punishment on x.
   Therefore, P is true.

Or as stated on Misplaced Pages article on Argumentum ad baculum "In other words, This is right because if you do not believe it, you will be beaten up." If this does apply to your logic, which I believe it does, then there may in fact be some sort of logical Fallacy. I have already explained to you that I believe I have the right to campaign as per Misplaced Pages's policies WP:PG.

What I am trying to get to with all this rhetoric is that perhaps your initial block may be biased and not totally or properly founded. Of course this opinion is based on the aforementioned deconstructive analysis and is nothing more than an interpretation of the problem I perceive with the block. --CyclePat 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pat, the reason you are blocked is to contain the disruption your campaign is causing. This is nothing to do with extortion and everything to do with limiting the very substantial disruption you have been causing. What you are doing is actually reinforcing the determination that AMA was fatally broken; you and your actions are a large part of why discussion has been curtailed and even the people who thought it might be salvageable have walked away. Sad but true. I'm not going to unblock you until you accept that the campaign must stop. The reason is precisely as stated: to limit disruption. Blocks are preventive, not punitive - this is a preventive block to stop disruption, just that, nothing else. As soon as there is no further threat of disruption, the block can be lifted. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited your user page

See Here] I removed a link to a page that redirects to a deleted page. Feel free to revert me. Spartaz 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I forgot about that page. Thank you for the reminder! --CyclePat 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

humm... To bad I'm currently blocked and can<t make edits. --CyclePat 04:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen Cycle

CyclePat, please just drop the AMA. You are not doing yourself any favors here and you are in a no win situation here (In regards to the AMA and its restoration). The community closed the AMA, so with you unblocked it is gone and with you blocked it is still gone. You are martyring yourself over a dead issue, I ask you is that logical or rational? You are a fine editor accept Guy's deal and drop it so you can contribute to Misplaced Pages. Æon 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank Aeon for your concerns... I can't help but feel that the AMA is part of me. Once an AMA member always a member. B.t.w.: "Am I a such a disturbance or troll, as you say, that you come out after me armed with wikpedia blocks? When I was with you helping day after day in various difficult AMA cases, real trolls such as Cplot and various conflicts you never blocked me. But this you hour the triumph of destruction!" --CyclePat 22:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one that blocked you (and I'm not a SYSOP), I never called you a troll (I however agree that your actions were wrong), I'm not the one that went against consensus, I'm not the one that lied to get another member blocked, I'm not the one that harassed the EA, and I'm not the one who started things with various SYSOPS. Do your self a favor and drop it. Your actions more than anyone elses killed the AMA CyclePat, by carring on as you have you convinced many that the AMA deserved what it got......even me, one of the former deputies.

Oh and I wasn't involved in the Cplot affair (I thought that was the AMA worst moment in fact).....and you never assisted me in any case I had. Drop it Cycle for your own good. Æon 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My Friend Aeon, I tell you truly we fought for the same just causes. However, you appear to currently disown your relationship with the AMA and hence with other members such as me! To hate me and "my actions" is to hate the AMA and Misplaced Pages's fundamental principles. What I gather is that had I not performed such works among the AMA, as no one has done before, the AMA would not be closed and the AMA (including you) would not be guilty of violating Misplaced Pages's rules. But as it is, you have seen the work I/we did, and you go on hating me and the AMA. Let us be honest... It is much better for you that I and the AMA go. Sure you may lose sight of me but eventually we will meet again. In the mean time, you might as well scatter leaving me quite alone. --CyclePat 06:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You are only alone because you haven't been listening to your friends. --Kim Bruning 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (Also, you have some trouble distinguishing friends from foes)

What Kim said. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what happened to the AMA. No one "hates it." No one hates your actions. Rather, the community believe that the AMA no longer serves the purpose of building an encyclopedia. You seem to have lost sight of why we are here. Our purpose is not to create Great Justice. It is not to ensure that every block or ban is fair or even handed. It is not to ensure that every editor has his views represented fairly. THis is not a debate society. Your quixotic quest for Great Justice when the community's desire is for an encyclopedia will not result in your success. The door is open for you to rejoin the community when your goal becomes building an encyclopedia. But it will be closed harshly and quickly if it is not. --Tbeatty 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello my Friend Tbeatty et all.

In an iconic or pun like symbol that would go in line with the plot of Don Quixote I say, "perhaps I should call up my handy assistant Rocinante the horse of Quixote". But seriously, if you look at the "community's desires" for an encyclopedia it must rely on a few fundamental components. The first would be "community". The etymology of community stems from the word "common" or the Latin word communitatem. which means 'fellowship, community of relations or feelings.' First element of the adjective "ko-" meaning "together" and "moi-n-", suffixed form of base *mei- "change, exchange". The second element of the compound also is the source of Latin "munia" means "duties, public duties, functions," those related to munia "office." If this does not exist, then we have no community. Misplaced Pages has several duties and guidelines. One of the most important involves building "community consensus. "To build this link of "togetherness and exchange" it is important to ensure that every editor has a way to voice and exchange his opinion and view. Misplaced Pages has realized this from the start and provides numerous such occasions. Take for example the edit summary at the bottom, the talk pages for articles, various templates for discussions, afds, community rfc's, etc... The goal is to build a community and hence to build an encyclopedia. If the AMA is in fact the undoing of Misplaced Pages then cut it off and get it away from me and everyone. However, as I just mentioned, I see the AMA as a catalyst for exchange and building a better community and I fear my views, even if placed before the highest of Misplaced Pages orders, will not change so easily.

It is unavoidable that scandal will occur, nonetheless, I wish misery upon those where scandal does come! A cleaning out of AMA and some of it "disruptive" editors may have been called for, but it is time to help those that can not see or understand all the works and rules (or office) of Misplaced Pages. It is time to build a working community to build, in turn, a working encyclopedia that represents the community and our guidelines (ex.:WP:POV's, well cited, and balanced). (ex.: Allowing as per WP:PG#historical to campaign for community input) --CyclePat 19:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC) p.s.:The fundamental justice principal is also key to building a good community.

Cycle! this is what the community was talking about with the AMA, Your wikilawyering. That was one of the chief concerns that the community had about the AMA. Cycle just let it go man! Stop the wikilawyering, agree to drop the AMA, apologize to the community and move on your only digging yourself in deeper. Stop to think there are several editor telling you the same thing and try to HELP you. So please listen Æon 19:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Misplaced Pages is not a court, never was. Whatever the original concept of AMA, it ended up as a sort of Giovanni di Stefano by committee. Nightmare. I believe that taking on Cplot was the final nail in the coffin, but it was far from being the only nail. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN

Pat, There is a discussion at the Administrator Noticeboard pertaining to your current block. It appears the idea being discussed is that you would be unblocked and allowed to continue editing provided you voluntarily cease your efforts to resurrect AMA with the understanding that continued actions/discussions pertaining to AMA would be grounds for reinstating your indefinite block. You can respond here with your thoughts about the offer if you wish. Regards,--Isotope23 20:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I Have Protected This Page

CyclePat, I hate to do it, but I've protected this page from editing. For the last time, the AMA is dead and the community does not want it back. I set the protection to expire in two weeks. I hope that by the end of those two weeks, you'll be more ready to give up on the AMA and join the community again. Regards, ^demon 20:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected so you can respond to the above thread pertaining to WP:AN.--Isotope23 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you my friend Isotope23. I will honor you good faith in un-protecting my talk page by trying to build a resolution to this dispute and answering yours and the community's difficult question. First, I hope this does not cause you any harm via such things as WP:WHEEL, if it does cause you harm I will understand and ask that you back away. I know you are an excellent editor and would not want you to face such anxiety. I have quickly read through the discussion at WP:AN and understand some or most of the concerns and proposed solutions. I must however review these thoughts prior to providing my answer.

One interesting issue, which I believe JzG has pinpointed, is the fact that I don't see the community's consensus to close the AMA. A secondary issue, that of which it appears I am currently blocked for, is the conflict and rules that allow for campaigning and re-opening of the AMA. This may be a solution to the first problem, which consists in gaging the communities consensus on the AMAs closure.

Unfortunately, I see a discussion regarding my comportment entangled with discussions concerning the AMA. I see people saying that the AMA is dead, but I wonder if they say that because they believe that it is currently dead or that it should have been shut down (or remain closed). I see many other issues of which are not too relevant but create perhaps, as you may say, a type of shadowing of the issue. Again, I must think over this request and some of the proposed solutions at the WP:AN. One of my proposals would be to be able to participate in EA with DA or email assistance, but again I must think over couple things and give my answer to the community. (given the fact that I am banned from EA I don't know how well that would work over) Nevertheless, if you can't beat them join them, right? In the mean time, to also honor demon's initial block I will not write anything until I have my answer for you and the community. --CyclePat 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Moreschi (talk · contribs) unprotected the page after a discussion at ANI and there was support for that action so you could respond.--Isotope23 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Another drive by editor in an attempt to convince you to give this up. Dead in this case, means gone and not going to come back. I would suggest if you want to ever be unblocked you will give this up - there is absoloutely no way you will be unblocked any other way. Viridae 13:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought

If you really want to help users who have problems or conflicts with other users - why don't you join the Mediation Committee and/or Mediation Cabal? >Radiant< 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As one of the ~~cabal gods~~ MedCab coordinators, I can say we're always looking for ~~fresh meat~~ new volunteers, especially those with experience helping out other editors in dispute resolution. :o) Vassyana 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Um. Experience indicates that resolving disputes may not be Pat's forté. There is no shortage of thinks for a keen editor to do, though. Reviewing and untagging invalid speedies and educating newpage patrollers, for example. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree sorry pat but I feel your temperment is not suited to reesolving disputes Æon 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA

As per Neigel's statement on the AMA talk discussion board. I believe that the process was not quite transparent. I would go as far to say that this is so obvious to the point that many of the people that decided to shut down the AMA where mostly administrators. They say community consensus, but I say Administrators board consensus. If this was truly a process at arms length then we should be able to have an independent review by someone... but it wasn't. It was a bunch of administrators, whom sadly I think where fed up with the idea of losing debates in the face of adversity, logic and rebuttals from the AMA. Unfortunately they've waved their hammer. Yes, perhaps there was consensus by the community... but I think the consensus was from a community of admins. Yes! Even with the fear to sound paranoid or lacking faith I say this. This is because, again I wonder, what is or was the arms lenght process that ocured in such an alleged community agreement to close the AMA. To make things worse in my eyes at appears as though everyone here supporting this block, are disrespecting policy on building community consensus. Muzle the dog! I get it! but, that's not in respect with wikipedia's policy on building a community. I really see nothing wrong with wanting to campaigning and ask questions regarding the AMA and what people think about it. What I see wrong is this block to try and avoid a scandal. What I would like to see come out of this is a "community board... not an administrators board... where this discussion et all. should have taken place. Administrators are more than welcome to discuss their opinion there off course. (It may be the same thing... but I don't think so, given the fact that within the last 2 weeks I have still seen some people posting on the Admin board saying things like... ouh! I'm not sure I can post a reply on here!). My transparency being honest... and if that means I'm going to be blocked for it... well then I'm not happy with wikipedia and perhaps this is no longer a place for me! (In the mean time I will be debating if I should have my userpage removed as unfortunately think of making or using another account. --CyclePat 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

please DROP IT!

Cycle I'm going to be very very very blunt with the following comment. WILL YOU PLEASE DROP IT ALREADY! It wasn't just admins Cycle it was the comunity in an MfD, AN/I on the AMA itself. STOP wikilawering allready and face the fact the AMA is gone and after all the needless drama I feel it got what was coming to it. Æon 03:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Official Appeal to be Unblocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CyclePat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no possibility of me damaging the AMA (given the fact that it is closed). The AMA is even protected and locked and watched by hawks eyes. According to WP:PG I have the right to talk about reviving a historical page. The AMA is a historical page. Hence being blocked indefinitely for allegedly trolling is not warranted. The initial block may have been justified, given the fact that JzG knows my reactive and sometimes non orthodox procedures (ie.: my last 72 hours block for going to the community sanctions board) to try and resolve a disputes. But truly, I don't see the hazard here anymore. What I do see is a block that is preventing a fair Wikipedian (Me) from actively contributing to articles and discussing on users talk pages. I have previously attempted discuss this issue with the blocking admin, JzG, and there was in fact (see above discussions) some fair discussion. The conversation (ultimatum) has stalled and I am not willing to loose my wikipedian liberties for talking about the AMA. I'm dead no matter what if I accept the "deal"! If I accept the deal and I slightly talk about AMA they could have a real reason to indeffinatelly block me. Now however, they have just blocked me for "trolling"... which according to Misplaced Pages is essentially "making comments intended to provoke an angry response."] I am not trolling. Furthermore, my intentions where all true in the spirit of building concensus at respecting wikipedias guidelines... and still are. Another reasons I believe that I should be unblocked, as you may have inferred from my previous statements, can be found in this statement from wikipedia; "A person who retaliates (using whatever means) as a result of a misunderstanding (or as a way of rebelling against the overzealous application of rules) is not a troll." In no way did I intended to provoke an angry response as I was looking for a true incite on the issue. I therefore request that this be considered as my official appeal and request to be unblocked. Again, trust me, this is no inside joke and if I'm missing something in regards to the process I doubt I am seriously deluded. Finally, I see that some people have expressed concern over my questions regarding the closure of the AMA, and again I say, these are truly questions which I have or am still pondering.

Decline reason:

Please answer the question posed by Ryan at #Unblock. — Picaroon (Talk) 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm going to bring this request up on WP:AN. While I'm inclined to give you a chance to edit here, I get the impression from what you've written above that you intend to pursue further discussion of AMA here at Misplaced Pages and I suspect that if I were to unblock you right now and you were to continue your attempts to discuss and/or resurrect AMA, you would find yourself indef blocked again rather quickly...--Isotope23 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pat, what's missing here is an undertaking to drop it. That's all that's needed, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Guy, Ok! Perhaps a miss-understanding on my behalf. But I'm sure you are aware that I don't presently have the resources and time to continuessly parade about and argue such a debate about the AMA, so you know the situation is going to be pretty much a moot. How about if you just leaved me alone and never talked about AMA then perhaps we might all be better off. I don't talk to you and you don't talk to me about it! At that point though perhaps I might just come to the sad realization that no one was happy with AMA and that you guys where obviously right!!!! (or maybe not... an eternal debate that could probably go on till the end of time! And what is useful?) So, again, my main issue with this entire thing is... the ultimatum you have presented which leaves me wondering what I may and may not talk about to other users. Let's assume I'm unblocked and get 3 other users interested in the AMA by specifically talking to them on their user page. At that point there is still no saying that the AMA would be revived. We would just be 3 users talking about AMA and how it may have been dysfunctional or useful and how we could improve it. The other reason I believe AMA wouldn't come back so easily is because of WP:CON, just because there are 3 users on the page doesn't mean that the community agrees with it! The same thing with WP:CCT, WP:EA, WP:???, WP:AN, however, many users agree with that/those board(s). So as stipulated in WP:PG I think there would need to be some sort of "community debate" to revive it. Currently there wouldn't really be a good place for this, except for maybe the community portal or it's own talk page. So, until that happens, I'm stuck in a redundant loop of nothingness which I believe doesn't warrant a block. As I suggested, and as you guys have said... "just let it be." "Letting it be" as the Beatles once sang, has many interpretations and goes both ways. If everyone however just let it be... at the same time, there is a conflict, where this goes against building a community consensus. It doesn't help the community which is capable of not only logical rational but change to develop it's own opinion and transparent decision. So, can you please bear with my resistance to change, my attempt to try and find consensus, the historical making of the AMA, what I consider a fair association, and perhaps my lack of understanding on why the AMA was closed. Also, it is neither necessary for you to try and answer these questions. Simply accepting that they exist is sufficient and that we don't agree is great! Also accepting that fact that there may still be some form of interest in the AMA and that there may be a time that comes where our community wishes to review and re-open the AMA proposal. Trust me, I want and I hope to be one of the people to be able put some input. Therefore, I am resigned to not being able to accept your ultimatum. I don't think it is reasonable to ask me to never talk about AMA. Hence, in reply to you proposition, I appreciate your concerns and your initial block but I can no longer accept such a block and such an ultimatum. This ultimately would have me blocked for talking about the AMA. And, unless of I was being a real WP:DICK or trolling neither do I see a reason to warrant a block. (I do however agree that my attempt to make an essay on WP:historical pages may have been provocative and I appologize for specifically naming some users in this essay. However, I think only a certain objectionable passages (which where in fact kind of labeled as such) should have been deleted) Again, I do appologize for this essay as I believe it was perhaps the cause that initiated this block. I do not appologize for trying to find the truth and trying to find out why the AMA was closed so quickly and do not believe this in itself is trolling. --CyclePat 00:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can no longer accept such a block and such an ultimatum. - At the risk of stating the obvious, that's not your choice, nor do you have the slightest power or ability to make it a choice. As the discussion here makes clear, your only two options are:

a) dropping the AMA obsession completely and being unblocked.

b) being blocked forever, and your Talk Page protected.

There is no Option C. And promising (A) and violating it by the tiniest bit will immediately bring about (B), it's pretty clear. So, your two and only choices are pretty clear. --Calton | Talk 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: Please note this discussion, especially this conclusion: No action taken, Pat is indefblocked and will not be unblocked until he accepts the terms put before him, that any discussion of unblocking does not begin until he promises to not bring up AMA (or similar "groups" again. Once again, there is no Option C. The ball's in your court. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I am willing to unblock you, however, you are banned indefinately from mentioning AMA on wiki again, that includes all namespaces, if you are to mention it once more, the indefinate block will be reinstated permanently. Is this something you are willing to agree to? Please note, if you are not willing to agree to it, it is extremely unlikely that you will ever be unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI / À titre d'information

Tell qu'envoyé à un commis de l'organisation d'arbitrage: Allo, je me retrouve dans un pétrin. Il y a environ 2 mois passés j'ai contesté la fermeture du group wikipedia WP:AMA (c.à.d.: Association Members Advocate). J'ai tout essayé pour garder set association fonctionnelle. Désormais, même lorsqu'il y avait du monde qui travaillaient encore dessus, elle a été fermé. Certaines de mes actions ont parus pour certains administrateurs comme si j'étais un troll. Je crois que le point culminant était lorsque j'ai commencé à écrire un essai sur les "pages historiques." Mon compte d'accès CyclePat a été bloquer pour une période indéfini. Il me parait que la plupart qui écrivent sur ma page ne veulent plus entendre parler de l'Association (AMA) et ne seraient pas près à faire une session de médiation. D'ailleurs, il m'offre un ultimatum. "Soit que je parle plus du AMA ou que je reste bloquer" diraient-ils. Voilà une des raisons pour laquelle je crois qu'une convention d'arbitrage est nécessaire. Pour de amples détails sur le sujet veuillez voir les opinions exprimées sur ma page "talk". En gros, je crois que ceux et celle qui on fermé avait un lien de dépendance ("non arm's lenght") car l'association se retrouvait souvent critique de leurs procédures. C'est vraiment dommage qu'on ait essayer 3 "MfD" (miscelanious for discussion) n'ayant pas porté fruit. En tout cas, voilà l'histoire derrière mon bloc.

Maintenant, comme j'ai indiqué si-dessus, on ne s'entend pas quant à débloquer mon compte d'accès Misplaced Pages. Je ne crois pas dans l'ultimatum donné. Je crois que je devrais avoir le droit de parler du AMA, tel qu'indiqué dans les règlements de Misplaced Pages sur la politique de page historique et tell que discuté sur la page "talk" de mon compte d'utilisateur. De plus, si jamais il arrive qu'un intérêt suscite la communauté j'aimerais ça que je puisse en être capable de participer.

Merci pour votre attention sur se sujet.

Can you try that again in English? My French is non-existent. Thanks Spartaz 17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes Pat, please repost in English and I'll see if I can get a clerk to take this to ARBCOM (my French is so poor that all I understood was "Envoy", "Organization", & "Arbitration").--Isotope23 15:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Isotope and Spartaz... This message was already sent/emailed to a clerk of arbcom (the day I posted the French request (July 3-4th?))). He is an advanced french speaker whom also expressed his concern on the "rustiness" of his French. The only reason I posted it here is, as indicated, FYI (for your info.) Obviously not helpful for only English members. Sorry... but I figured since I'm still weighing the benefits and cons of doing an Arbcom it wasn't quite necessary to have in english... Plus I'm a little bit better at writing in French. In a nutshell what the message says is I believe that an arbitration may be necessary. Essentially I restated my beliefs (as discussed on this talk page) in nicely summarized fashion. I'll see to translating this for you guys... or maybe not. Not be rude but it's simply because I am still pondering the private discussion I am having with the Arbcom clerk. Thank you! --CyclePat 23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to translate it for me... my request was merely to take it to ARBCOM, but if you are already pursuing that avenue; no need to translate just for my sake. Thanks.--Isotope23 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

CyclePat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is ridiculous. Please unblock. There is no real reason for this block and you are wasting everyones time if you let this go on any longer.

Decline reason:

I don't see a case to unilaterally lift your block when there was fairly clear community support for enacting it. See my comments below Pat... — Isotope23 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to start a discussion on whether your block was appropriate or not, I'm just asking: will you leave AMA alone and write articles instead? MaxSem 09:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo what MaxSem has offered. If you agree not to mention AMA or make any edits related to that topic – and you continue to stay away from WP:EA – you will be unblocked. There's no reason why you couldn't then return to making positive article contributions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pat, I suspect nobody will unilaterally unblock you at this point without you making some sort of statement about leaving AMA in its grave. Let me know the name of the Clerk you were discussing arbitration with (July conversation above) and I'll see if I can follow up and maybe we can work out some sort of solution.--Isotope23 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pat, just please drop it. If you agree to stop going on about the AMA and let it rest in piece then they will unblock you. Æon 22:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom Notice

{{helpme}}Below is a draft for my Arbcom. DRAFT. Could someone please read through and give me there comments or corrections. Thank you for your help.

No-one actually wants you blocked Pat, it's simply that your blind "defense" of the AMA had reached the point where it was unacceptably disruptive to the project. You may as well accept that the reason you haven't been unblocked is because most admins agree with Guy, or at the very least don't disagree enough to do anything about it, so you need another 1300 parties to your case. Arbcom aren't going to unblock you if you are going to go straight back to disrupting the project. I (and pretty much every other admin) will unblock you immediatly if you agree not to bring up the AMA again so the effect is the same - but without the case. I really wish you would just accept that the AMA has gone and agree to move on like everyone else. Spartaz 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pat, please don't waste the ArbCom's time with this. This type of tilting at windmills is precisely the same sort of behaviour that got you in trouble in the first place. Listen to the community consensus and let AMA rest. You could have been unblocked and back to being productive months ago.

If you do file for arbitration, bear in mind that other editors will very rapidly sketch out your full involvement in – and edit warring over – WP:AMA and WP:EA. This was stuff that everyone else has put behind them; do you want to stir up all that ill will again, and draw attention to your behaviour? In the extremely unlikely event that the ArbCom decided to take this case, it would only be to affirm the community's decision and quite possibly to add additional sanctions.

Finally, on a style note, it's traditional for a statement for ArbCom to be written in the first person, not the third. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The only comment I can offer is that I don't think ARBCOM will consider the current status of AMA; the community was pretty clear that AMA was not seen as a useful thing and I suspect ARBCOM won't override that as it is really a content issue. I suspect the only thing they would possibly consider is whether or not the stipulation that you not mention AMA as a condition to be unblocked is reasonable or not.--Isotope23 11:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, the community said the AMA is dead. Let it rest the ArbCom will most likely not rule in your favor if you start a case. Instead of just being blocked and able to come back you could be banned from the project. Just agree to the terms for unblocking and stop being a martyr for a lost cause. Everyone else has come to terms with the loss of the AMA (just as they did when Esperanza was closed down) and it is unlikely to be restarted. Just please drop it Æon 13:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Advocate Members Association (AMA)

Initiated by CylcePat at 06:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by CyclePat {party 1}

CyclePat has been indefinately blocked since June 3rd 2007 by the administrator JzG for allegedly trolling. There is a relationship inbetween this block and CyclePat's objection to the closure of the Association of Members Advocates (WP:AMA). After months of negotiation the blocking admin and CyclePat can not come to a resolution. The proposed solution by the blocking admin would have him promis to never mention the AMA again. There is a dead lock because CyclePat believes that he should be permitted to continue talking about that subject. Since there appears to be no concensus or resolution via regular dispute resolution methodes, JzG's block should be reviewed and brought, (and probably a long time ago), before a higher committees than just wikipedia administrators. Being given such an ultimatum, according to CyclePat, feels like persecution because of his beliefs in trying to establish a fair and equitable wikipedia system. Arbcom should step in to make a clear decision on both the AMA and CyclePat's current status.

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Just to drive home the point and hopefully wake you up

CyclePat here is what the community consenus is.

No action taken, Pat is indefblocked and will not be unblocked until he accepts the terms put before him, that any discussion of unblocking does not begin until he promises to not bring up AMA (or similar "groups" again.

That is per the Community Sancition page (I have no idea where it is but I will find it so you may have a look see). Please just drop the AMA ok. Æon 13:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the dif please drop the AMA as the community basicly banned you until you agree to stop bringing it up. Æon 14:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, I think you meant the previous diff: . TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Er oops thanks for the correction I was in a bit of a rush. Æon 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pat, the ArbCom is obviously going to reject your case. As has been said many, many times at this point.. you will NOT be unblocked until you agree to stop proselytizing for AMA or similar goals. You are a useful contributor to Misplaced Pages other than this.. drop the issue and get back to improving Misplaced Pages. SirFozzie 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Man

I think I need your help and support. I go an e mail from an editor asking me to look at the List_of_gay_porn_stars section. These articles are riddled with POV, advertisement and spam. I tried to do a simple prod tag but oh my did I get the thrashing of my life! These subjects are the actual editors of their pages. So, when an editor goes in to try and edit the articles, they jump on them and remove any edits they do not like. The way the WP:PORNBIO is written, all these people have to do is to win an award or be able to write something about themselves in a web page and it can be entered into WP. When you click on the links for these pages, they take you to websites that you either have to agree to enter in on adult content or it takes you to their porno stores. The only way to get around these people is to put them up for AfD. I need some help here. Do you think you would like to join forces with me to rid WP os some of this crap? Let me know. I certainly could use the support and help Junebug52 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

M 18, 7