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