Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Scumbag

Case Filed On: 07:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

• Scumbag (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• A Man In Black (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• Tiberium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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: Content Dispute, possible personal attack (but I would say thats a stretch)

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: We've discussed it (fairly rudely on both sides), there's been an edit war, and neither side is willing to see the other's side.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: Some sort of decision on the future of the article in question. I'd rather not get into another edit war with him about this, and he's going to revert anyone's changes to the article in question.

Summary:

Well, its kinda hard to explain, so I'll be brief.

It all started when I created this image] for the article in question, Tiberium. He didn't believe it was appropriate for Wikipedia, and we had a... fairly unpleasant discussion with him, and he then decided to go through a lot of the articles I've edited (including the one in question) and removed 90% of the article. After/during an edit war, I did some sourcing, but he kept reverting. Then he got blocked (slightly unrelated to this situation), and I reverted things back. Then I got blocked (again, related to this) for 24 hours, but someone else reverted the topic to its original state. I just noticed that it got shrank down again, losing about 90% of its sourced information, so I decided to go through this route instead of getting into an edit war. Frankly, I'm not sure if this was the right thing/method to do, but frankly I'd like a final say on the matter.

Discussion:

• Hello, I'm a new AMA member considering taking your case. It sounds like your difficulties involve a number of other articles besides the Tiberium one. Could you identify a few other articles where you've experienced difficulties? Thanks, --Shirahadasha 01:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that'd be fairly easy. Cybran Nation is a good example of my problem. Notice how it redirects to Supreme Commander? Me and another member had been working on articles for each major faction in the game (Aeon Illuminate, United Earth Federation, and Cybran Nation, but AMiB decided to redirect all of those into the core article. If you'd take a look at the article's talk page, you can see he's the only one advocating the merge. He did not seem to understand when I could provide eight articles of a similar nature. Ravnica's plane article is another example. Despite a consensus against him, he deleted considerable content, even considering valuable information to others 'lol-worthy'. He was also involved in vandalising every M:TG article, saying something is original research when it's the game's history. I realize it's a bit below the belt, but he's been blocked three times this month for violating 3RR because the people maintaining those articles don't agree with him either. At the core of the problem, really, is the AMiB hates 'cruft', despite fancruft not being a enforceable policy, as well as a history of using real-world notability guidelines instead of the notability guidelines for fictional topics.

I am not sure if I can speak here, as I am uninvolved; feel free to revert this if it is not protocol. AMIB has consistently brought up WP:WAF in relation wot WP:N and WP:FICT. WAF speaks about the real-world context, which is brought up in the form of WP:N, so the "notability guidelines" is at least somewhat satisfied. Second, characterizing his deletions as WP:VAND is misleading. It is his good-faith effort to remove uncited, un-attributed content. He is being WP:BOLD, which is not considered to be vandalism. The case could be made that he is removing copyright violations, as Tibertium appears to contain passages of content - such as tables and scuh - lifted from the presumed C&C manual. Too much copying falls under copyvio and not fair use. In that case, reverting that removal could be considered to be vandalism. Fancruft is only an essay, true, but while AMIB refers to the removed content as fancruft, he consistently brings up the policies WP:ATT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT - all of which are policies or guidelines.

The content is now deleted, but Scumbag once had a page titled "Scumpolicies," presumably about not following policy, that got him blocked for 24 hours. [1] Hbdragon88 07:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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: NEW

Advocate Status:

• None assigned.