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

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: Unresolvable dispute over whether image is NPOV or not.

'''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: Talk to other party, disengagement

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: An answer as to whether or not the image should be removed or not, as per NPOV

Summary:
I removed an image that I believed was pushing an agenda of pro-America-ism, rather than presenting the facts of the article directly. My removal was reverted by the other party, and I reverted it back. They then broke 3RR by reverting again, and I think I did the same. Seeing as they will not discuss the issue, I see no other option than to contact the AMA.


 * I would suggest that you fully understand 3RR before acusing someone of it. I consider this harassment by you. Duke53  | Talk 18:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Duke, unless you are invited onto this page, it is a bit inappropriate for you to post here. Requesting an Advocate is not a form of harassment, but a form of requesting help when a Wikipedian is in over their head. Each Advocate is supposed to research into each dispute as requested by their Advocee and lend whatever assistance they can to solve their issue. Many times this entails acting as a mediator between two or more parties, as a representitive when their Advocee cannot articulate their concerns under Wikipedia Policy, and a source of constructive criticism, as sometimes an Advocee may be a bit "in the wrong" and needs to compromise to work towards resolution. If these claims are incorrect, correct, or a bit of both, it's an Advocate's job to see so and act accordingly and work with the situation, rather than against it. אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  20:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion:
Taking a close look of the image, it is in violation of Wikipedia Policy on images as it was uploaded by without a copyright notice (see: Image:Anti_America.jpg) and is an unfree image that was taken from a news article and disseminated over the web in various forms. The easiest way to take action against it would be listing it under Speedy Deletion, which I already have. Let's see what happens. אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  17:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The image has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia Policy. אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I have a funny feeling that the wrong image may have been removed and that I might have misread what you have told me. Please take the time to respond. אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, for the record, there was no 3RR violation that I could see on either account. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <B> ( desk / AMA ) </B> 22:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OkamiItto
OkamiItto, seeing that the image in question was taken down as a copyrght violation, are there any other problems that you would like to have addressed within this dispute? אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <B> ( desk / AMA ) </B> 22:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No other problems at this time, thank you.OkamiItto 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Addition - I apologise for my misunderstanding of the 3RR. It was explained to me by another Wikipedian as being three reverts within 24 hours by multiple people, not just one. I'll make sure to read such things before making accusations in future - however, I did not believe at the time that the person who told me this was unreliable. OkamiItto 03:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a bit confusing. The "Three Revert Rule" is enforceable only if a single editor reverts something 4 times within 24 hours. It's up to 3 reverts that are "allowed" (however not encouraged). :-) אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <B> ( desk / AMA ) </B> 12:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Duke53
Duke 53, seeing that there was no 3RR violation (of which you expressed displeasure in being accused of), I would like to hear what other concerns you may have about the article's content or anything else relevant to the edit dispute that you would like to have discussed? אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <B> ( desk / AMA ) </B> 22:47, 3 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:

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: closed

Advocate Status:
 * I'll take this as I'm sure I can resolve it quickly. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <B> ( desk / AMA ) </B> 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checking - is this case ready to close? M a rtinp23 15:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This case has been "dead" for a while. I'm closing it. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <B> ( desk / AMA ) </B> 17:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)