I have been involved in a dispute over [[Bob Jones University]] with a few editors for the past few days. I've made the argument that the rules posted in a list are not encyclopedic and are POV when placed in context only with criticism. Additionally, cutting the rules from the BJU.EDU page and pasting them into the page is a copyright violation. After trying several times to edit the offending section in various ways and trying to find a compromise, I decided I had no choice but to remove the offending content and place a copyvio notice in its place. I initially only did this in the "Rules For Students" subpage. The administrator that was involved in a dispute over the article reverted the page and removed the copyvio notice. This is avoidant vandalism. I then re-read the entire policy which states that I should blank the page and add the copyvio notice, which I did, citing each copyright violation and the page it was copied from. This was again reverted. I continued to ask Ambi (the administrator) to please just remove the offending content and we could work on a compromise. He continued to revert the page. After reverting the avoidant vandalism many times, he had me blocked for a 3RR violation. As I read 3RR it states that there is an exception made for vandalism. However, I was blocked for violation of a 3RR rule, and *I* was attributed with the avoidant vandalism as well when it was Ambi that continued to remove the copyvio notice. I believe ambi was acting in good faith, but this is over the top and a violation of the rules, IMHO. I realize I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and may be wrong, but what else can I do but follow the policy as it is written on Wikipedia's site? I'm also confused why I was attributed with the copyvio removal when it was Ambi that continued to remove the notice. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help.
Tobin Titus AKA: Sleepnomore
If you feel you have been mistreated, the most prudent course of action would be to discuss the issue rationally on the talk page of the article or of the users involved.
I'd also point out that NPOV does not stand for No Point of View. If you feel that the discussion of the rules is imbalanced, then feel free to correct that imbalance by discussing alternative points of view. Removing slabs of content does not correct the imbalance and detracts from the completeness of the wiki.
As you can see other users have rewritten the content in question, so that it is no longer a potential copyright violation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Jones_University&diff=2206... It seems that the issue has been resolved.
(PS. User:Ambi is female, so please use the correct pronouns.)
On 8/28/05, Tobin Titus tobin@titus.to wrote:
I have been involved in a dispute over [[Bob Jones University]] with a few editors for the past few days. I've made the argument that the rules posted in a list are not encyclopedic and are POV when placed in context only with criticism. Additionally, cutting the rules from the BJU.EDU page and pasting them into the page is a copyright violation. After trying several times to edit the offending section in various ways and trying to find a compromise, I decided I had no choice but to remove the offending content and place a copyvio notice in its place. I initially only did this in the "Rules For Students" subpage. The administrator that was involved in a dispute over the article reverted the page and removed the copyvio notice. This is avoidant vandalism. I then re-read the entire policy which states that I should blank the page and add the copyvio notice, which I did, citing each copyright violation and the page it was copied from. This was again reverted. I continued to ask Ambi (the administrator) to please just remove the offending content and we could work on a compromise. He continued to revert the page. After reverting the avoidant vandalism many times, he had me blocked for a 3RR violation. As I read 3RR it states that there is an exception made for vandalism. However, I was blocked for violation of a 3RR rule, and *I* was attributed with the avoidant vandalism as well when it was Ambi that continued to remove the copyvio notice. I believe ambi was acting in good faith, but this is over the top and a violation of the rules, IMHO. I realize I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and may be wrong, but what else can I do but follow the policy as it is written on Wikipedia's site? I'm also confused why I was attributed with the copyvio removal when it was Ambi that continued to remove the notice. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help.
Tobin Titus AKA: Sleepnomore
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l