User talk:Alan.ca/CJCurrie

CJCurrie Revert Wars

I'll answer several of the allegations that CJCurrie has made against me:

The other situation involves my dispute with User:GoldDragon. GoldDragon's general "modus operandi" on Wikipedia is to repost the same edits over and over and over, even in situations where everyone else disagrees with him. I've dealt with him over a period of several months, and consider him to be a nuisance editor most of the time (although not a vandal). I'm certain that I'm not alone in this view. I've tried introducing compromise language several times, but, unfortunately, I've learned that one frequently has to descend to his level of multiple reverts to counter his dubious edits. It isn't pleasant, but the alternative is generally worse. CJCurrie 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, CJCurrie is not above such a "modus operandi" either, though he brags to you as if he is above it. This often makes disputes with him all the more difficult, because he is an expert with wiki format which lets him talk as if he is holding the high or moral ground.

For instance, he pretends that he has consesus, when he really does not since its only him and I engaged in the dispute. Second, some of his compromise efforts are frequently footnoting the material or saying that "it is not relevant". A perfect example was on Joe Volpe regarding the paragraph about the donations parody website; despite the section having the support of BlackEagle, ChrisThompson, and myself, CJCurrie kept removing it and even went as far as to label it an attack edit. Ending up, it is now just two sentences and it may face removal on CJCurrie's pretext of "shortening" the article. GoldDragon 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to interject: BlackEagle and ChrisThompson were openly partisan contributors who disappeared soon after making their contributions. I stand by my previous actions. CJCurrie 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you labelled them partisan just as an excuse to delete something you didn't like. You also tried to threaten ChrisThompson with the 3R, and then BlackEagle astutely pointed out that it did not apply. GoldDragon 17:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their partisanship was blindingly obvious. CJCurrie 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just sour grapes from someone who was outvoted 3-1. Second, a partnership is not illegal, as you have used them to skirt the 3R. GoldDragon 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asserting abuse of admin powers, but I do believe that someone who holds these powers should be more consistent with the criteria to be nominated as an admin, namely, acting consistent with wikipedia policies. Reverting an edit, refusing to discuss it and subsequently returning uncited information while removing a well source statement, doesn't seem consistent with the ideals of this project. Alan.ca 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Joe Volpe's expenses, yeah it is clear that the Toronto Sun is right-leaning, but at the same time, it is going a tad bit far to consider it entirely "unencyclopedic" and remove it entirely. (Does the same scrutiny apply to left-leaning tabloids like NOW and Eye?) On Jean Lapierre, there are enough sources to back up the controversial statements. It is still a work in progress but there is a difference between modifying the wording and deleting the controversy entirely and leaving no trace. Regarding Judy Marsales, which I will not intervene in for the moment, if that is what the source article suggests, then by all means include it. GoldDragon 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your contributions, you seem to think you are the authority on article content. You may want to consider, that you do not hold the stick of final decision. This is not the first time that you have reincluded unsourced information and removed someone elses cited work. I do, however, find it interesting that most of your reverts are when the included information suggests a right winged political view, where you seem to have no problem including uncited statements when it supports a left wing view. So let us continue to skirt the 3r rule as we continue to revert war on the article.Alan.ca 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do notice that CJCurrie has a left-leaning and/or anti-Conservative bias in his edits. If there is any criticism of the left-wing, CJCurrie will move quickly to ensure that it is refuted. Most notably when he redirected attacks on the Bombardier deal to a trip that Howard Moscoe made in Isreal, in effect making a "straw man arguement" to be easily struck down.

Also, when CJCurrie "exercises" his final authority, he often requests that the change be discussed on the talk page before considering inclusion. But by agreeing to such a request, that would essentially give him the decision to say "no". I understand that a group of editors on a well-established article or the main author of a featured article request this, but the current articles in dispute do not meet either criteria. GoldDragon 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCurrie is an expert on the technicalities of wikipedia, but I have no idea that he is an admin. Let me know if there have been any admin power abuses, though he has been careful enough not to make blatant mistakes. GoldDragon 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCurrie, I think the point here is that you're a controversial editor. While it is important for Wikipedia to have people who challenge statements included in articles, you may want to consider removing your unsourced statements before judging the sourced statements that conflict with your point of view. Alternatively, if you feel that an article is taking a biased perspective you could source statements of another point of view to balance it towards your definition of neutrality. If you cannot find any, you may consider tagging the article as not being neutral. Alan.ca 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, (i) the question of sources is irrelevant to our current dispute, (ii) I removed information because it was of dubious importance, not because it "conflicted with my point of view", and (iii) I think you may be giving too much credence to GoldDragon's complaints. CJCurrie 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "Dubious importance" is overused to the extent that it no longer serves CJCurrie's cover to delete criticism. GoldDragon 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCurrie, I have looked at your contributions, you have put a lot of time in to Wikipedia. I respect your contributions and ask for you to respect those of others. You may in fact find these items to be of dubious important, but you may want to ask yourself if you're being a little too assertive about that POV. In the case of the Judy Marsales vote ( diff), you had the option to find disputing article, but instead, in frustration I believe, you chose to delete. I myself have been warned by an ArbComm member to be careful about removing sourced statements, please consider the impact of these assertions. Alan.ca 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, I deleted the reference because I did not consider the matter to be of sufficient importance for inclusion (and it was for the same reason that I did not seek out a "disputing article"). Frustration wasn't a factor until another contributor decided to revert the page multiple times.

Some things can be perfectly sourced, and still not meet the threshold of notability. This is one such. CJCurrie 00:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What wikipedia policy are you basing this position on? I have debated notability of articles, but never that of statements. Alan.ca 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Threshold of notability" coincidentally always applies to criticism that CJCurrie does not like.GoldDragon 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible the threshold will be discussed in the MEDCAB case.

Admin 3R Noticeboard

Seeing that CJCurrie decided to slander me even though his initial dispute was with you...

Do you think you could give me some help for Jean Lapierre and Joe Volpe? GoldDragon 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We may be able to resolve all of these disputes together. As much as CJCurrie has frustrated me now for the second time. In the first incident, after dispute resolution began he withdrew his edit. I can't assume bad faith on his part, I only know he appears to be editing from a left POV. I may be able to join a dicussion the two of you are having regarding the problem and give my perspective. Where are you discussing these edits with him? Alan.ca 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell from the edit comments, but no discussion is going on for the moment. Although I wouldn't go as far as trying to push the 3R, a few reverting of his edits will force him to back down somewhat. Then again, could this thing get out of hand? GoldDragon 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, warring with reverts isn't good for anyone. He probably isn't purposely irritating us, I have placed a mediation request, hopefully I will get to the bottom of things with him through the process. I encourage you to start a discussion with him regarding the issues and see if you can't reach a compromise. I appreciate your effort to try and find a compromise between CJCurrie and I on the Judy Marsales article, but I think for now we should leave the article where it is in hopes that the mediated discussion will facilitate resolving the problem. Alan.ca 08:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Request

Hello Alan. I'm Aeon and I will be your advocate for your case. If you could give me a brief run down of your problem I will see if I can help you. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn....ok I can't be the Advocate in this one per AMA and MEDCAB Guidelines. I will continue to handle it until a new Advocate is found. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Seadog is taking over the case. I'm sorry to bail on you like this but it would be better fo both parties to have someone new handle this then have a piror medator do it. I will be watching the case as it is Seadogs first (not to worry he is capable). Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If don't then I will but it is inapproprate for me to do so. Ok I will. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Marsales - Ground Zero's thoughts

Alan, I'm not clear why you think a dispute about an article should ever be limited to a selected few editors. Articles do not belong to anyone. they belong to everyone. If I wish to weigh in on a editorial dispute, I will do so. it is not appropriate to tell someone to back off. I have made no edits to the article, but expressed my opinion on the talk page.

I note that you have become active on Wikipedia only in the last few months. New editors are of course always welcome. I suggest that you

(a) familiarize yourself within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NPOV; and

(b) spend some time observing how people interact here on Wikipedia before jumping into disputes with other editors. I also encourage you to ask experienced editors if you are unsure about how to respond to something or if another editor undertakes an action that you think may be inappropriate. Often seeking a third opinion can help resolve a dispute before it escalates to a Medcabal case, for example.

Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you spare me the policy rhetoric. I'm not saying you cannot weigh in on an article dispute. I'm asking you to back off from a personal dispute between CJCurrie and I. I'm not telling you to back off, I'm asking you. Do what you want, it was a simple request that apparently you're not interested in taking. That's fine, it makes the discussion more complicated, but thanks anyway. Alan.ca 13:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were related to the content of the article, which is a Wikipedia issue, and not to any personal differences that you and CJCurrie may have. Ground Zero | t 13:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, as you have expressed interest, would you comment on the list of possible sources I placed on the talk page? Alan.ca 22:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All parties reading this discussion may wish to read the following ArbComm decisions: