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

Case Filed On: 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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: In some ways, this issue is my own fault, as I acted in a hostile tone and took a negative attitude toward having vandal tags posted on my talk page and getting an admin involved, rather than the user coming to me directly to resolve the issue on a person-to-person basis.

'''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 are currently involved in a Mediation Cabal, but I feel that the other user involved is using other methods and requesting that the admins ban me for this one single issue in an otherwise spotless Wikipedia record.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: I would just like some assistance and advice on the situation, how to handle the mediation process, how to resolve this so that I am not labelled a vandal or an uncivil user, and to return to my previous standing in the Wikipedia community.

Summary:
A few days ago, a line about St. Catharines, Ontario being the fattest city in Canada was posted in the opening section of the article. I have worked very hard on the article, producing all custom images, writing many sections myself, providing photographs of the communities, etc. I am very proud of what the article has become and consider it one of my best works. I found the line not very fitting (and the tone outright offensive) and removed it from the article, citing that I did not believe it belonged on the page. Yankees76 then posted a vandal template on my :talk page and restored the line to the exact same place in the article. I removed the item again, recommending that the user see the article :talk page if he wanted to discuss its merrit in the article. Again, he continued to post templates on my own :talk page. At this point, I grew offended and tired of the computerized responses, and grew uncivil. Yes, I made a few personal attacks against the user, used some uncivil language and overall made a fool of myself. During this time, the user (I do admit, rightfully so) got an admin to tell me to back down, which I did. I then initiated mediation through the Cabal. I have not made any edits to the St. Catharines article since I initiated mediation, and I also recommended that other users not talk directly to each other during the mediation process. Today, Yankees76 posted to Glen_S that I was still being uncivil and I was threatened with a final warning saying that I would be banned from Wikipedia. I do not know why this happened, as it was yesterday and well past the mediation process had been initiated, but at this point I feel threatened and that everything is stacked against me. Yes, I made a mistake, but I am trying to make it right.

Yes, I did not handle this situation very well. While there is certainly no excuse for some of the personal attacks I used, I did take some of this personally, and as a result I responded in a manner that is not very becoming of a civil Wikipedia member. I do, however, feel that this situation is improving, and that I do not deserve to be threatened with outright banning from Wikipedia, especially since this is the first instance that I have acted inapproprietly. I would appreciate any advice you can offer on the situation.

(I do apologize for the spelling mistakes. This is very stressful, and I have never been a good speller  to begin with)

Discussion:
Thankyou for your patience. It seems a case of the classic, incivil edit war, although yours was more of a skirmish. I understand the amount of work you have done. Quite a lot, you are to be congratulated on that.

Perhaps Yankees76's choice of template was not suitable or that he though you were a vandal. It seems his intentions were to get you to stop you deleting content he added.

The only point of conflict that remains is is:
 * Does Yankees76 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. Yankees76 has a point, no-one owns pages, and we all have a say in what goes into them, if the information is true and relevant, there should be no reason to omit it.

It is true that you were:
 * In-civil
 * Offensive
 * Un-cooperative
 * Irrational

However, it is good that you have realized and acknowledged your mistakes and actions and are seeking to make a means, and if you (and it appears you already are) adopt a new style of editing based around civility and co-operation, no further action should be taken against you and we can forget your discrepancies.

It would be a great show of good faith is you apologized to Yankees76 for your personal attacks. Regards, Dfrg.msc 07:07, 6 February 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: closed

Advocate Status:
 * I will take this case, as with Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Yankees76 which is linked. Dfrg.msc  06:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)