214:, and he then decided to go through a lot of the articles I've edited (including the one in question) and removed 90% of the article. After/during an edit war, I did some sourcing, but he kept reverting. Then he got blocked (slightly unrelated to this situation), and I reverted things back. Then I got blocked (again, related to this) for 24 hours, but someone else reverted the topic to its original state. I just noticed that it got shrank down again, losing about 90% of its sourced information, so I decided to go through this route instead of getting into an edit war. Frankly, I'm not sure if this was the right thing/method to do, but frankly I'd like a final say on the matter.
330:, which is not considered to be vandalism. The case could be made that he is removing copyright violations, as Tibertium appears to contain passages of content - such as tables and scuh - lifted from the presumed C&C manual. Too much copying falls under copyvio and not fair use. In that case, reverting that removal
334:
be considered to be vandalism. Fancruft is only an essay, true, but while AMIB refers to the removed content as fancruft, he consistently brings up the policies WP:ATT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT - all of which are policies or
190:
Answer: Some sort of decision on the future of the article in question. I'd rather not get into another edit war with him about this, and he's going to revert anyone's changes to the article in question.
21:
322:. WAF speaks about the real-world context, which is brought up in the form of WP:N, so the "notability guidelines" is at least somewhat satisfied. Second, characterizing his deletions as
17:
473:
340:
The content is now deleted, but
Scumbag once had a page titled "Scumpolicies," presumably about not following policy, that got him blocked for 24 hours.
346:
231:
468:
77:
223:
Hello, I'm a new AMA member considering taking your case. It sounds like your difficulties involve a number of other articles besides the
310:
I am not sure if I can speak here, as I am uninvolved; feel free to revert this if it is not protocol. AMIB has consistently brought up
176:
Answer: We've discussed it (fairly rudely on both sides), there's been an edit war, and neither side is willing to see the other's side.
171:
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.
291:
because the people maintaining those articles don't agree with him either. At the core of the problem, really, is the AMiB
54:
273:, he deleted considerable content, even considering valuable information to others 'lol-worthy'. He was also involved in
108:
103:
112:
292:
95:
71:
157:
How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)
250:
300:
261:, you can see he's the only one advocating the merge. He did not seem to understand when I could provide
257:, but AMiB decided to redirect all of those into the core article. If you'd take a look at the article's
411:
If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the
Advocacy process, what would it be?
296:
144:
270:
326:
is misleading. It is his good-faith effort to remove uncited, un-attributed content. He is being
67:
258:
242:
228:
227:
one. Could you identify a few other articles where you've experienced difficulties? Thanks, --
48:
327:
323:
319:
304:
311:
284:
182:
343:
266:
246:
391:
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your
Advocate was in solving the problem?
245:? Me and another member had been working on articles for each major faction in the game (
168:
421:
If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
315:
211:
462:
254:
238:
99:
401:
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the
Advocacy process is altogether?
210:. He didn't believe it was appropriate for Knowledge (XXG), and we had a... fairly
162:
Answer: Content
Dispute, possible personal attack (but I would say thats a stretch)
44:
357:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:
203:
129:
224:
207:
91:
287:
when it's the game's history. I realize it's a bit below the belt, but
381:
On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your
Advocate?
299:
not being a enforceable policy, as well as a history of using
371:
Did your
Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
241:
is a good example of my problem. Notice how it redirects to
289:
he's been blocked three times this month for violating 3RR
341:
288:
280:
277:
274:
125:
121:
117:
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Association of
Members' Advocates
199:Well, its kinda hard to explain, so I'll be brief.
8:
305:notability guidelines for fictional topics.
361:Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
85:Knowledge (XXG) pages this pertains to:
7:
62:Other Wikipedians this pertains to:
28:
474:AMA Requests for Assistance/Cases
301:real-world notability guidelines
206:] for the article in question,
181:What do you expect to get from
265:articles of a similar nature.
212:unpleasant discussion with him
202:It all started when I created
1:
237:Sure, that'd be fairly easy.
269:is another example. Despite
469:AMA Requests for Assistance
490:
347:07:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
232:01:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
39:Wikipedian filing request:
34:07:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
271:a consensus against him
267:Ravnica's plane article
251:United Earth Federation
283:, saying something is
169:Dispute Resolution
143:Have you read the
285:original research
243:Supreme Commander
481:
450:Advocate Status:
445:
314:in relation wot
167:What methods of
133:
115:
489:
488:
484:
483:
482:
480:
479:
478:
459:
458:
441:
436:
434:AMA Information
355:
303:instead of the
247:Aeon Illuminate
220:
197:
140:
106:
90:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
487:
485:
477:
476:
471:
461:
460:
457:
456:
455:None assigned.
448:
435:
432:
430:
428:
427:
418:
417:
408:
407:
398:
397:
388:
387:
378:
377:
368:
367:
354:
351:
350:
349:
337:
336:
235:
234:
219:
216:
196:
193:
192:
191:
178:
177:
164:
163:
154:
153:
139:
136:
135:
134:
82:
81:
68:A Man In Black
59:
58:
32:Case Filed On:
30:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
486:
475:
472:
470:
467:
466:
464:
454:
453:
452:
451:
446:
444:
440:
433:
431:
425:
424:
423:
422:
415:
414:
413:
412:
405:
404:
403:
402:
395:
394:
393:
392:
385:
384:
383:
382:
375:
374:
373:
372:
365:
364:
363:
362:
358:
352:
348:
345:
342:
339:
338:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
293:hates 'cruft'
290:
286:
282:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:Cybran Nation
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:Cybran Nation
233:
230:
226:
222:
221:
217:
215:
213:
209:
205:
200:
194:
189:
188:
187:
186:
184:
175:
174:
173:
172:
170:
161:
160:
159:
158:
151:
150:
149:
148:
146:
137:
131:
127:
123:
119:
114:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
88:
87:
86:
79:
76:
73:
69:
66:
65:
64:
63:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
42:
41:
40:
36:
33:
23:
19:
449:
447:
442:
439:Case Status:
438:
437:
429:
420:
419:
410:
409:
400:
399:
390:
389:
380:
379:
370:
369:
360:
359:
356:
331:
262:
236:
229:Shirahadasha
201:
198:
180:
179:
166:
165:
156:
155:
142:
141:
84:
83:
74:
61:
60:
51:
38:
37:
31:
29:
335:guidelines.
275:vandalising
218:Discussion:
152:Answer: Yes
463:Categories
344:Hbdragon88
295:, despite
278:every M:TG
204:this image
138:Questions:
353:Followup:
259:talk page
297:fancruft
225:Tiberium
208:Tiberium
195:Summary:
183:Advocacy
92:Tiberium
78:contribs
55:contribs
22:Requests
20: |
426:Answer:
416:Answer:
406:Answer:
396:Answer:
386:Answer:
376:Answer:
366:Answer:
328:WP:BOLD
324:WP:VAND
320:WP:FICT
281:article
145:AMA FAQ
109:protect
104:history
45:Scumbag
312:WP:WAF
253:, and
113:delete
332:could
263:eight
130:views
122:watch
118:links
16:<
318:and
316:WP:N
126:logs
100:talk
96:edit
72:talk
49:talk
443:NEW
465::
249:,
128:|
124:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
185:?
147:?
132:)
94:(
80:)
75:·
70:(
57:)
52:·
47:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.