Jump to content

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Andrew Powell

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Filed On: 07:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Case Opened On: 11:11, 04 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Questions:[edit]

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: Content dispute.

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: Tried to restore my work.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: In the case of Kleinzach/Semele, I would like to see my work returned to the correct page. I would also like someone to address Kleinzach's concerns about "split" pages. In the case of Cielomobile/Threepenny, I would like my work restored and to have an informed arbitrator make decisions about the points Cielomobile contradicts.

Summary:[edit]

Kleinzach moved my work en bloc from one page to another -- to the wrong page. He then wrote about the problem of "split" pages, which is really an issue of disambiguation. That is, whether to allow narratives that discuss a combination of works. Using this "split" issue, he forcibly (and, as I say, wrongly) labeled Handel's Semele an oratorio and reserved the “Semele (opera)” page for Eccles. Then, inconsistently, he left the third and less-known Semele opera (by Marais) on the page with Eccles! Actually what is needed is a clear narrative, such as I created (and Kleinzach destroyed), that introduces the reader to all three Semele operas. Or a better system of disambiguation. It is just anal to insist that Handel owns “Semele (oratorio)” while Eccles owns “Semele (opera).” How should “Otello (opera)” be handled? By moving Rossini’s Otello to oratorio? Doesn’t work! Also, who gets to decide ultimately whether Wikipedia considers Handel’s Semele an oratorio or (as most observers agree, and as the article supports with evidence) an opera?

In the case of Cielomobile, he twice reverted edits I made to The Threepenny Opera. The second round of reversions was automatic, it seemed, destroying things even he wouldn’t disagree with. He also cut out intelligent and informed commentary I provided merely because he doesn’t agree. I think this is against Wikipedia policy, at least according to what I have read. He criticized my grammar. He made a number of pedantic changes that add nothing. He made claims that aren’t true, using for example the word “revolutionary” to describe a work that created no revolution at all. He used German abbreviations, as in I., II., III., for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, in an English-language article. He labeled a Georgian story “Victorian” because it mentions a queen, when this was intentional obfuscation by the creators of the work. Again, who gets to decide these things, and what can contributors do to stop their contributions from being wasted by others?

Discussion:[edit]

  • I'd be happy to discuss the issues on the talk page of Threepenny, and I believe I asked Andrew to do so in the edit summary, but he did not. It's been a while, so if he'd like to provide the diffs here or on Talk:The Threepenny Opera, I'd love to discuss the changes. If I remember correctly, he added some awkward phrasing and some statements which I viewed as in violation of WP:NPOV, so I made a partial reversion, but I certainly may have reverted too much. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also be happy to discuss any issues on the talk pages of the various Semele works. - Kleinzach 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topics that are capable of having separate articles have separate articles, regardless of whether that topic just so happens to have the same name as another, almost entirely unrelated topic. That's policy, and that's unambiguous. But I freely admit that there may be ambiguity as to whether Semele (oratorio) should be considered an oratorio: perhaps a page-move to Semele (Handel) - currently a redirect - as a compromise? Moreschi Request a recording? 14:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup:[edit]

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[edit]

Case Status: open


Advocate Status:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/Andrew_Powell&oldid=1138375346"