Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyclepat

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~ ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
Cyclepat while being a good member of the community and has contributed greatly to the project he has failed to see how constantly bringing up a closed down organization can be detrimental to Wikipedia and the community that maintains it. Cycle also while bringing up his issue harasses both myself and the WP:EA (NOTE: I'm not a member of the EA}

Desired outcome
I would like to see CyclePat improve from this and not have these sorts of issues in the future. It would be an unfortunate loss to the project to lose a good editor over a dispute like this. This is not meant to Get CyclePat sanctioned, blocked or banned in anyway it is only for him to see how he is now coming off and how he can work to better Wikipedia and himself.

Description
I didn't want it to come to this but I feel that Cyclepat needs to see that his actions that he is undertaking are causing unneeded and undue stress and are tying up resources on Wikipedia that could be better spent elsewhere. There is much that can be done on Wikipedia the AMA has served its purpose and had laudable goals just like Esperanza did. Like Esperanza its own bureaucracy and red tape destroyed the AMA.

The AMA was shut down by the community and tagged historic. Those tags where removed after an MfD failed (due to the fact it was tagged historic). After the MfD failed adn the changes were reverted a post was made on WP:AN/I regarding the AMA. Many posted comments and consensus was that the AMA was done and shut down adn was retagged historic. I then reverted all changes made to the AMA (to enforce the consensus ruling). CyclePat disputed this as is his right. However he also undertook a campaign to have me banned (for no reason) by making a false statement on AIV claiming that I vandalized Wikipedia (something that I have and will again fight against on here as you can see on my user space), and making several false statement on the community sanction board, and committing a three revert rule violation , , ). These accusations against me are and were uncalled for and I respectfully requested that he cease on his talk page. Cycle pat was blocked for 72 hours for this and has numerous past blocks due to incivility and 3RR.

Cycle pat as also written an essay in which he also goes after the Editors Assistance group with which he has had an on going dispute in addition to myself. It is this action that was the straw that broke the camels back with me. Cyclepat has in carrying on with this failed to assume good faith and is trying to in my opinion trying to get members of the EA and myself sanctioned for doing what is best for Wikipedia.

It is my hope that CyclePat doesn't see this RfC as an attack but as a last ditch effort to save him from having more issues on Wikipedia. He is a good editor and I hope in the future he will follow Consensus of the community rather than trying to impose his one on it.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * WP:HARASS-, , ), , , and
 * WP:POINT -, ), , , and
 * WP:3RR - ),, ).  and this where he threatened the commit 3RR violations before he did those
 * WP:AGF - pretty much the same as those above.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:HARASS - Both my self and the EA
 * WP:POINT - posting to get me banned and trying to overturn comunity consenus
 * WP:3RR - was blocked for it however he has had a past and shows an overall unwillingness to bow to consensus.
 * WP:AGF - basiclly by trying to have me blocked and going after the EA he failed to assume good faith.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Thread started by CyclePat (kudos to him for doing so) Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive249 but the community said it was closed.
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive249 - where the 3RR violation were taken care off (I was away from my computer so I was unaware of this until most of it had happened and I declined to comment on it)
 * - asking him to cease with naming me on all AMA restarts and complaints.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Æon Insanity Now!  02:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to stop him from being disruptive by forum-shopping for Aeon1006 to be blocked/banned. Said action failed, and Cyclepat was blocked and user talk page protected. I believe that I fall into the category of having tried and failed to resolve the dispute.  Daniel  07:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I blocked him for active disruption at one point, and simply replaced what had gotten himself blocked on his talk page during the block. He needs to stop— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK applies. I have talked to Pat about this by email, at my talk page and at his talk page, Kim has left a rather bitter message on his talk, but Pat still does not seem to accept that the debate has been had and he lost. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I'm afraid so. His absolute persistence on not shutting down the AMA was annoying at least, and borderline disruptive. ^ demon [omg plz] 21:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)



Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Comment by Calton
Admin User:JzG has indefinitely blocked CyclePat until such time he promises to drop the matter (, notified here). CyclePat's response was to try to continue discussing the matter. Not a hopeful sign.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Calton | Talk 02:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I for one am very disapointed that CyclePat would not let the matter drop and the fact that he keeps trolling  Æon  Insanity Now!  03:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.