Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Muéro

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: Policy violation and breach of civility.

'''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: Tried discussing with other party.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Help other party understand Wikipedia's policy. Help other party understand "good faith."

Summary:
After I tried to remove non-NPOV material from the Ales Hemsky page, Chayos reverted my edits. I re-did the edits, and explained my reasoning behind them. Chayos reverted my edits again, demanding that I list specific reasons for editing each passage. I listed those reasons on the Ales Hemsky talk page, and made the edits for a third time. He started out by saying he was a better writer than I, implying that I should not edit his work for grammar. He made offensive jokes pointed at me ("Lol, are you kidding me?"). He claimed that common sense is valid justification for adding content to articles. He used the hypothetical situation of him violently attacking me in an attempt to illustrate a point. He made more uncivil comments ("I get a very arrogant vibe from you, and I don't appreciate it"). He reverted more of my good edits to the page. I have reminded him about using edit summaries twice, but he still never provides any, except to make uncivil comments ("btw muero, where are your "major contributions" to this article?") (I never claimed I would make major contributions, although I have provided numerous citations.)

I noticed that he had removed a lot of material from his talk page, without archiving it. I added the deleted material back and posted a warning on his talk page about removing legitimate messages. He deleted the messages yet again, so I reverted the edit and posted another warning about removing legitimate messages. He deleted the messages for a third time, and added the following to my talk page: "Do not edit my talk again. If I need tips, I'll ask someone I respect."

Discussion:
Looking at the recent article history, I think you could have already resolved this. Obviously, I'll advocate on your behalf, if you still believe that's appropriate. Addhoc 16:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Although the Ales Hemsky page is fine for now, I really wish Chayos would understand why removing legitimate content from his talk page, being uncivil, making abusive edit summaries, adding non-NPOV material, etc. are bad. Also, as of now, his talk page is still in its mostly deleted state. I would fix it, but I'm afraid that would just make the situation more combative. --Muéro(talk/c) 01:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. In this instance, I agree reverting his talk page wouldn't be productive. If there were several warnings for vandalism and personal attacks that could result in a block, then clearly such warnings shouldn't be deleted. However, given the edit war has finished and the original warning messages related to not using edit summaries, I would recomend you don't revert his talk page. Regarding influencing his future conduct, in the first instance I would let the situation cool down. Addhoc 10:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read Chayos's latest remarks on the Ales Hemsky talk page. He calls me arrogant and claims I was unwilling to compromise. He shows disdain for the "rules." He says he plans on restoring what I deleted. --Muéro(talk/c) 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "This article is only about 1/2 the length it should be, but I'm not going to go scrounging for links to back up every statement I will eventually replace because I'm in school now. Later I'll look for the links and add them as I restore deletions, even though every sentace will have a citation (which I still don't think is appropriate, because no Wikipedia articles have every sentance cited), but according to the "rules", that's what has to be done, so eventually I'll get around to doing it." This is what I stated, and you're complaining that I plan to restore deletions? Almost every comment on this page is out of context, in an attempt paint yourself as a victim.  Unbelieveable.  Chayos 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The last comment you made was "I've already said that I'm going to cite everthing I add in this article from here on." Addhoc 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, and the quote I posted above is the instance I refer to in your quote where I say that I already mentionaed that I plan on citing everything from here on. Yet, Muero still had a problem with that, complaining that "He says he plans on restoring what I deleted," even though I clearly said I plan to cite everything. This guy is just unreal. Chayos 18:01, 10 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:
 * Accepted Addhoc 22:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)