Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Yankees76

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Filed On: 05:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

• Yankees76 (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• Snickerdo (talk · contribs)
• Trappy (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• St. Catharines, Ontario (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contents 1 Questions: 2 Summary: 3 Discussion: 4 Followup: 5 AMA Information

[edit] 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 (primarily), with personal attacks/uncivility

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: Talked to other parties involved (see Talk:St. Catharines, Ontario)

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: For users working on the article to gain a better understanding of WP:OWN and WP:AFG, and for the cited material to be added with a consensus, not because there are 2 editors wanting to supress it.

[edit] Summary:

On January 22, I added some notable, verifiable information to the St. Catharines, Ontario article.[1] I was in the process of carrying on a civil discussion with Trappy (talk · contribs) on the article talk page regarding where the information would be best placed within the article, when a second user, Snickerdo blanked the information[2] When I attempted to discuss this action with the user, I began to be met with uncivility and personal attacks. From my perspective the user is a resident of St. Catharines and has worked on the article with the impression that he owns the article. The user has even go so far as ask me to go "destroy" other pages like the county or city where I was born. My biggest complaint with this user is the total lack of civility with which he operates on Wikipedia, and secondly, I feel that a the NPOV policy is not being adhered to in this case. Because the material I'm adding is potentially negative, it's being challenged and removed (first from the lead in paragraph, then altogether), despite being very well referenced.

I've been advised to inform you that Snickerdo has submitted this case for Cabal Mediation and the case was accepted by Jaimie Henry.

[edit] Discussion:

Thankyou for your patience.

I have spoken to Snickerdo, it seems that now he acknowledges the wrongdoing on his part and wants to make positive out of it. I'm working on getting an apology from him. He's making steps to become a better user. I think a "forgive, forget and co-operate" mentality should be adopted here to prevent further conflict.

I don't think any real wrong doing has been committed on your part, however, Snickerdo would have, I'm sure appreciated if you had a little more patience. I future, try to give full warnings and propose a resolution in the face of personal attacks, in the stead of getting involved.

The only point of conflict that remains is is:

• Do you still want the information in the Article? If so, then we will find a solution and compromise as to where to put it and how to put it in there?

Regards, Dfrg.msc 07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• A resolution as to content has been reached. Dfrg.msc 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

• Answer: Yes

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

• Answer: Yes

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

• Answer: 5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

• Answer: 4 (will change it to 5 once other user apologizes - but otherwise advocate did a great job)

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

• Answer: 4

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: Disengage from the situation sooner to allow other irrational behaviour to subside before proceeding.

[edit] AMA Information

Case Status: closed

• Case closed. Dfrg.msc 00:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Advocate Status:

• I will take this case, as with Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Snickerdo which is linked. Dfrg.msc 06:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)