Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Hammbeen

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



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: Scotbotuk considers addition of a quote by established (although controversial) writer/conservationist Edward Abbey as a personal attack because it lists problems that the writer has witnessed as a result of ORV use. Scotbotuk calls the observations irrelevant, but mainly because he disagrees with them, not because they're inaccurate.

'''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: The quote was originally more sarcastic and extreme. I have repeatedly pared it down to the essentials and removed everything that Scotbotuk would consider offensive. He still now calls it irrelevant. Scotbotuk still only reverts the edits.

Talk:Off-road_vehicle

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Permission to use this relevant quote in an unoffensive form.

Summary:
I think that the Edward Abbey quote should be permitted. It may be inconvenient for ORV riders to read, but it is still relevant. Abbey's statement is a valid criticism of ORV use (as the section says), from his perspective as a conservationist.

Discussion:
Hello, Hammbeen! I've looked at the article and the quote that continues to be removed, and I think I can resolve this peacefully. Would you prefer to discuss this here, or on your talk page? — E  ditor at L arge  ( speak )  05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! I'm here now. Hammbeen 12:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! Now, I see why you think the quote should be included, but I can also see the reason behind Scotbotuk's reversions. The section as it stands does contain enough quotes to work well without the particular one you wish to be added; however, if your quote is of sufficient notoriety and will complement the article we can find a way to gain the acceptance of others and include it. I think that with a little more information on why the quote is important, or why the person who said the quote is important, we can prove why the quote adds to the article (instead of inviting controversy or presenting only one POV). What do you think would be the best course of action to follow for the moment? — E  ditor at L arge  ( speak )  17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm okay with leaving the page as it is. I guess I just needed a more objective view, since almost everyone else had something personally invested in the topic. Thanks again. Hammbeen 19:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

All right! I'm glad you were able to come to a peaceful solution -- though I didn't help much! Shall we say we are finished, then? — E  ditor at L arge  ( speak )  01:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Let's close it. Hammbeen 19:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, thank you! The case has been closed, so if you could answer the questions below I would appreciate it. Thanks again! — E  ditor at L arge  ( speak )  19:36, 22 October 2006 (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: 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: 5

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

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer: It seemed to be smooth and follow a set procedure. I think that it's a valuable process, even though this particular issue wasn't massive.

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer: Perhaps go in with compromise in mind pro-actively, not reactively.

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Accepted, — E  ditor at L arge  ( speak )  05:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)