User talk:CAtruthwatcher

Dallas

Well, I'm glad we got that straight! Whew! Student7 (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejection of Democratic Participation on Wikipedia

1) Eagles did nothing to get you blocked; I saw the edit war myself and blocked you. In fact, if you ask me, Eagles was far too gracious in not reporting you to begin with.

2) You will not be back to edit war, you will use the discussion page exclusively until you come to consensus, as it's been made clear to you multiple times you must do. Or, maybe I should say, you will not be back to edit war unless you want to be indefinitely blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am the only one in this "edit war" who has used the discussion page. Take a look at the edits summaries and the discussion page: I attempted to discuss many issues. Additionally, I know Wikipedia administrators do not often look at specifics: I was only attempting to be fair; others were not. Wikipedia ought not to be solely for "the regulars" as you call yourselves. That's control by the few. When someone comes along who is trying to be fair and honest, and disagree with "the regulars," they are blocked and scared away. CAtruthwatcher (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Wrong - you were not the only editor using the discussion page - ElKevbo and Eagles were using it about as much as you, and even the IP editor stepped in once.

2) Using the discussion page while edit warring is not OK. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a great essay for the proper procedure for edit warring.

3) Other editors were probably also trying to be fair. Check out m:MPOV.

4) This has nothing to do with the regulars. If you see any propensity at all on my part to block non-regulars over regulars, it's only because consistent edit warriors aren't here long enough to become regulars - they get blocked beforehand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Had I been uninvolved, I, too, would have blocked you for edit warring. If you continue to edit war on the talk page like you have promised to do, I will have no choice but to block you. I am trying to help you by providing you with relevant policies you have misused, and you are making no effort to learn from them. Also, I was not the one who bolded the statement, nor did I add back the bolded statement. If you still think the block is not just, you can always request unblock by following the instructions on the block template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

24.239.153.58is a sockpuppet of DC, Magog. If you are truly balanced, stop his vandalism.

I have taken a look at DC's list of my possible sockpuppets. I have never seen such stupidity; if he is right, I must edit more than anyone on Wikipedia.

Why is it permissible for others to proclaim that I use sockpuppets but when I argue the same about someone else, I am incorrect to do so?

You say that those IP addresses appear to belong to me? I live in another part of the country; it seems as many of those may be based in New York. CAtruthwatcher (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And it just so happens that the only pages you have edited are New York education-related, with the exception of an edit to the talk page of the University of Dallas. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, CATruth's not lying, he really does edit from another part of the country. And coincidentally, it's also from the exact same IP as User:Achievestudent. Of course, this is the reason you were blocked CAtruth: because you really were sockpuppeting. As for 24, I in fact contacted a checkuser by email, who confirmed these two were likely not related - and even if they were, two wrongs don't make a right. Please take your two weeks and walk away before one of us (or someone else) gets sick of your wikilawyering and locks the page or blocks you indefinitely. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Magog, the [you] Wikipedia oligarchs did not block me for two weeks, but for one month. "Take it," or a subsequent punishment will be worse, you say, as though I am prisoner being dealt a judgment by an almighty authority? Sickening. It would be wonderful if the average person who peruses Wikipedia could see what has gone on here.

2. Trying to defend myself against an oligarchy which refuses to look at the content of the substantial edits I tried to make is wrong and I should stop talking? The dictator-like tendencies of the Wikipedia oligarchy shows its true face.

3. Still no talk of how I tried to save a hijacked page from abusive edits. That is common of oligarchies; the man is never right if the oligarchs say he is not. It shows that you generalists have no business enforcing any rules. You have no knowledge of most subjects, and because you do not, if a dispute arises, you do not look at content to make a decision; you make authoritarian decisions based on which editor(s) you do not like and who has been around longer.

4. I do appreciate, Magog, you contacting a checkuser about 24. The bias, though, is evident: both you and Eagles take anything these people say to be scripture. But me, well, I cannot even defend the premise of neutrality.

5. Eagles, what is the problem with editing New York education-related material? As I say on my talk page, I am not a generalist like you and deal with a few narrow topics of in which I have no personal interest. I stay AWAY from anything I have an actual interest in; my goal is to stop vandalism. Some time ago, I saw a St. John's basketball game on ESPN and went to the school's Wiki page. I could not believe the point of view represented, and so, my desire to fix it began.

I shall not continue on this talk page, unless for some reason I feel heavily inclined to do so. For now, I will leave Wikipedia to the oligarchs. Perhaps I will pen a letter to Jimmy Wales about the generalist regulars who feel as though they have some sort of power to tell those without knowledge about a subject that they are wrong. And how if a man objects, he is blocked. Jimmy Wales would kick you out of here so quickly you would not know what happened. Wales did not foresee an oligarchy on Wikipedia, though it exists. And it is comprised of men with so little knowledge of particular subjects. Generalists aren't supposed to be controlling the content of pages. Individuals are supposed to be pooling their knowledge to frame articles.

It is all for shame. CAtruthwatcher (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)