Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Arturico

Case Filed On: 18:14, 1 March 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: Policy violation (WP:BITE WP:AGF)

'''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:None so far

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: An apology from Macrakis, and his promise that he will not bully me or any newbie again. Also it would be useful that the SUN study article would be reviewed again by a neutral observer.

Summary:
When I asked Macrakis why he promoted the deletion of the article "SUN study", he sent me the following message: "Arturico, this has little to do with science and much to do with Wikipedia editorial policies. You are no doubt familiar with the editorial policies of scientific journals which (among other things) require that papers be original (not published elsewhere before), that anonymous referees judge their quality, that they cite their sources, etc., etc. Well, Wikipedia, despite perhaps appearing to new users like an anarchy, has its policies, too, though they are very different from those of scientific journals. We are all very happy to have you contributing here at Wikipedia, but you should learn the rules. Unfortunately, you managed to violate quite a few of them in writing the SUN Study article. The SUN study may or may not be worth including in Wikipedia. My degree is in computer science, not epidemiology, so, as you correctly say, I really am not competent to judge. The article itself, however, should give enough information that other editors (a bit like journal editors reading referee reports) can evaluate it. Specifically, the issues here were that the text was essentially block-copied from text written by the authors of the study, a violation of policy WP:Copyright violations the person who added the article (you, under a different user name) was affiliated with the study (and didn't disclose that), therefore not a neutral third party, a violation of policy WP:Conflict of interest there was no indication in the body of the article itself that the study was notable (in the Wikipedia sense), a violation of policy WP:Notability no outside sources were given for the information, a violation of policy WP:Reliable sources. It is not up to me to find the indications of notability of the SUN study. It is up to you, as the editor of the article. And in fact all of the above issues could have been dealt with. Assuming that the SUN study is in fact notable, I look forward to reading an article about it on Wikipedia in the future. --Macrakis 19:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)"

Discussion:
Macrakis is a truly gentleman, and I do not want to keep on with this dispute.--Arturico 02:42, 2 March 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: 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´s ok.

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer: I don´t know yet.

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Looking into the issue. SilkTork 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The matter has resolved itself. Case closed. SilkTork 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)