Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/2ct7

Case Filed On: 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Case Ended On: 02:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Note this case is now on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2ct7 v. SomeHuman

Wikipedian filing request:

2ct7 (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

SomeHuman (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Humanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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: SomeHuman has acused me of bad faith edits. When I add reference to the article and make minor changes he repeatedly reverts back my work. He also reverts other editors contributions to the article and acts like he owns it.

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:Addressed this issue on the discussion page. His response was to again accuse me of bad faith edits and revert my work. On other pages he accused me of being a spammer.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

Answer:Rein in SomeHuman and allow other editors to contribute to the Humanism article.

Summary:

I am trying improve the Humanism article and other articles in the humanism subject area. SomeHuman repeatedly reverts my edits and tells me to "not be bold." I don't want to get into a revert war, and I want to contribute to improve the articles that he keeps kicking me out of. 2ct7 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SomeHuman's response

Response as had been delivered copied on January 30, 2007 19:26 (UTC) from Cocoaguy's talk page, as the latter afterwards insisted on a response on my (SomeHuman's) talk page, section "AMA (2ct)"(sic):
Hi Cocoaguy. You left a message on my talk page though its linked page does not immediately appear to have a space provided for my response; the wikisource of the 'discussion' section seems to reserve that section for your client and yourself. Anyway, 2ct7 has been violating a number of guidelines frequently, from WP:CIVIL to WP:PA though most clearly WP:AGF and it seems your client finds it difficult to write a comment without making false accusations. I might have sought advice as to bring more reason to 2ct7 but I assume a rather youthful person (at least that is what I would hope after our WP discussions) and limited myself to a few clear statements and advice. The obvious thing to do, is to read the discussions on the Humanism talk page 'Broken Link' and thereunder 'Accidental revert' (and have a look at the actual article's history for edit comments by 2ct7 and myself), and have a word with your client. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 30 Jan 2007 18:14 (UTC)
Furthermore, the template on humanism, which appears in a few dozen articles, was created and went through many contributors' improvements who all had put 'secular humanism' above 'religious humanism' (for proper reasons); only 2ct7 wishes to change this and after the former experiences with this user, his edit comments sound shakily: besides alphabetical ordering being inappropriate in the first place, it would have brought 'history of humanism' on top; and yet 2ct7 used the argument twice. His complaint here came even before I reverted his 2nd attempt of going against many good editors, as if these would not be aware of WP:NPOV. — SomeHuman 30 Jan 2007 20:33 (UTC)
Lawyer, keep your client in hand. 2ct7's unrestrained WP:PA even hereunder does not allow for any more patience; I do not further condole his continuous harrasment and persistent personal attacks. As evidently incapable to leave the latter out, your client will be best served by your advice to steer away from me in the future, less I will ask for a block or ban of 2ct7. — SomeHuman 30 Jan 2007 22:34 (UTC)

Cocoaguy, your February 2, 2007 02:59 (UTC) accusation hereunder of my disregarding WP:OWN is as false as your client's, and worse as you made it after having been shown my above and here repeated link to my January 24, 2007 21:38-21:47 (UTC) reply to that accusation. Quoting WP:OWN: If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it (bold as in the policy); it does allow keeping continued WP:POV disruption of an article out; see also WP:BOLD#…but don't be reckless. It states precisely what I had adviced your client on that article's talk page. — SomeHuman 2 Feb 2007 22:47 (UTC)

Discussion:

Why is there no message on your talk page? Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my age or any personal information about me have anything to do with this discussion? As usual SomeHuman make some derogatory off handily condescending remark. Since he has never apologized or even acknowledged making the many insults he continually throws at me I would expect him to deny that he will claim he is not talking down to me. SomeHuman you are ruining the articles in the Humanism subject area by squeezing the life out of them with iron grip of editorial obsessiveness. If any addition does not meet your personal non-inclusive world view you revert it and shoot off a nasty comment about whoever made the change. Why don't you loosen up and let the rest of the world contribute to wikipedia and stop being so nasty to everyone who's opinions you don't agree with?2ct7 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find both users at falt a)SomeHuman is disregarding WP:OWN b)2tc7 is disregarding WP:PA. I hope to put more light on the topic. Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk Get Lost 02:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take the case to MedCom. Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk Get Lost 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

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:

Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]