Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Dharmaburning

Case Filed On: 10:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

• Dharmaburning (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• Razmear (talk · contribs)
• Zebra6 (talk · contribs)
• SagePose (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• The_Freecycle_Network (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: policy violation

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: I've attempted to engage parties in rational discussion, to no avail.

Discussion page, Moving this page past the edit war

Discussion page, Repeated Vandalism

Discussion page, Controversies Section

Article History Page

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: To provide an authority figure to help everyone chill and get perspective and better understand Wiki policies.

Summary:

I have made changes to this wikipage, provided justifications, descriptions, talking points and engaged in open and rational discussion but the parties involved only wish to summarily revert any and all edits I may add, even typos. I've pleaded with them to stop and invited them to discuss matters, they only argue and summarily revert editing.

Note: This area is for summary of my filing. Please do not post, or repost, your arguments in this section.

Statement from Razmear:

The user Dharmaburning, previously identified by IP address only, has gutted the Freecycle Network article deleting long standing content. Even after the little reversion war yesterday, and pleas for discussion on any further editing of the article the user managed to delete another whole section (Use of funds) from the article before it was finally locked down in its current vandalized state. The article should be restored to the point before the mass deletions took place, and then edited from that point following proper discussion. This new user feels that he can delete whole sections of the article then insist that we justify reinstating everything he disagrees with. The user has also made multiple tiny edits to the page which made restoring individual points to the article inpracticable without reverting to the last stable version. User has an obvious bias in favor of the company listed in the article, and has also added an inappropriate link to the Altruism article to the company that the article discusses. That link was recently cleaned as Spam by myself. The goal of the user seems to be to get his version of events into the Wiki and then file complaints so that the article lock will preserve that version and prevent negative publicity for the company he represents. A simple look at the users contribs should bear out these statements. Also look at the contribs entered by the IP address 67.* in the Freecycle Network as they are by the same user.

--Razmear 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement from Zebra6:

It helps when people log in to identify themselves. Simple IP address logs are not as good. Dharmaburning (or whoever is behind 67.121.144.14 -- is that Dharmaburning?) made a huge number of changes in a short time that destroyed many reasonably established facts that can be verified indepdently or from a number of different sources. Those facts did not put TFN in a good light, but so be it. That is why there are so many different controversies around TFN. Just because those facts were unfavorable or Dharmaburning/67.121.144.14 personally disagreed with them, is not a good reason to remove them. 67.121.144.14 said that many items should be removed for blanket reasons that did not to apply.

So are 67.121.144.14 and Dharmaburning the same person? Or are they different people?

Radical changes to a previously stable article should be proposed and discussed a bit more before they are made, or be made more gradually. Basically the changes were too radical, too sweeping, and too unilateral -- thus the multiple separate voices for restoring what existed before and then evolving it from there.

Zebra6 05:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Statemant from SagePose:

User:Dharmaburning, initially connecting only under swbell.net IP addresses carried out mass blankings of The Freecycle Network page. Other editors reverted back to the last stable edit (generally held to be around 18th January) and requested the new editor to take this to the discussion page first. User:Dharamburning insisted on discussion only *after* his edits had been made, and repeatedly reinstated his edits - there were 5 complete reinstatements of his edits on the 2-Feb alone, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:67.121.144.14_.28also_known_as_User:Dharmaburning.29_reported_by_User:SagePose_.28Result:page_protected.29 (For my part, I accidentally also broke 3RR - I stopped after 2 reverts on the 3-Feb but one from the previous night had slipped over midnight. However, the edit history can clearly show my restraint and that of the other editors in the face of multiple reversions and edit storms from Dharmaburning). His actions have been accompanied by personal attacks on other editors and misrepresentation to Wikipedia admin. For example, Dharmaburning has repeatedly alleged, without foundation, that I have reverted grammar, typo and broken link changes, claiming dishonestly that I insist on reviewing all changes from the tiniest to the largest. Eventually joining the discussion page, Dharmaburning's contributions have been a list of the sections destroyed with sweeping generalizations on each. I welcome the page protection in this case, although unfortunately the vandalized page was the one protected, ironically because of the restraint of myself and other editors in not tit-for-tatting every mass edit by Dharmaburning. I believe the logical and fair next step to be to put the page back to the state it was in before this edit war, and improve it to the extent that strong PoVs can be assuaged. I have previously introduced a 'successes' section to this page to attempt to provide some balance, and having previously received the anger of both pro and anti TFN advocates am happy to continue to refine and rebalance the page. SagePose 09:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Response There is no mystery or ill will, as SagePose intends to paint it. I was very clear in my notes to my edits as well as one on one discussion with this user the effects of his continued and repeated summary reversions, yet he continued. As evidence of his disregard, once I made clear his efforts he summarily reverted the article several more times. Directly contradicting this user's denials, the continued reversions are readily available for review, as it is the subject of a 3RR complaint. There has been no restraint by this user as evidenced by their sustained summary reversions, vandalism of my discussion page, continued rants vandalism and summary reversion on this page, and also with the page of the 3RR complaint against him. Additionally, this user has also summarily reverted my minor edits on the Regiving page and The Freecycle Network at the start of this mess. Despite this user's denials and pretensions, there can be no clearer evidence to this user's agenda of demand and control, supersized with subterfuge. Dharmaburning 11:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

'Agenda of demand and control', 'rants', 'subterfuge' - the choice of language is unfortunate and indicative of Dharmaburning's interaction with other editors. The 3RR page clearly demonstrates my restraint (you had to go back to 20 Jan to bulk up the list of reversions, whereas you made 5 in one day). The Regiving edits were *not* minor - this is a clear misrepresentation, and no subedits were reverted on [The Freecycle Network], and there has been no attempt to "paint mystery". The edit history is here for all to see, as is the discussion page. SagePose 12:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I sometimes disagree with SagePose, I agree with the position he states here. Zebra6 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion:

Yes there is some 3RR vio in this case. Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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: open

Advocate Status:

• Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)