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