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

Case Filed On: 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Dsmethur (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

BiancaOfHell (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

ARTICLE (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: personal attack

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 talk.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

Answer: I would like User: BiancaOfHell changes reverted. I would like my contributions under Futher Readings to appear.

Summary:

I have written a book and have added it to appropriate articles under Further Reading. For example, the book is "Tripoli: The United States' First War on Terror." BiancaOfHell deleted every addition, sometimes multiple times, but has left alone all of the other authors who list their books in the same articles I've listed mine in. This attack appears to be personal. I'd like my changes incorporated. I think readers will want to find out about a new book on the subject.

Discussion:

I admit to deleting all additions of the book in question, as well as the web site in question, after I had to remove them several times from the William Monahan article. It had no place there, and when I found instances of the website/book additions all over Wikipedia I went and removed them as well. I thought the Further Reading section was being abused by the author, who was simply adding his own book to probably around 20 articles.-BiancaOfHell 04:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the user does not understand that William Monahan has written a screenplay for a movie, Tripoli, listed in this article. My book is the story of William Eaton as a diplomat and soldier. I attempted to add this to the further reading section of William Monahan article; anyone interested in a movie about William Eaton will also be interested in a book about William Eaton. I fail to understand the logic behind removing it.

I wrote the article on William Monahan. The Further Reading section is supposed to be related to William Monahan. By your logic anything Monahan ever wrote about (including Chrichton's Jurassic Park novels) should be included. It's not so. It doesn't work that way.-BiancaOfHell 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the logic behind removing all references to my book from further reading sections of articles such as William Eaton, Stephen Decatur, Barbary Wars, Isaac Hull, all of whom are figures in my book, makes no sense. Why not remove Joseph Whelan's book, or Richard Zack's or any of the other authors who have added links to their books and web sites. By your statment, they too have "abused" the section. Yet I can't help but think that very few readers would agree with you censoring articles to remove additional information they may wish to read. I would also state that in no case was a reference added to any article that was not discussed in my book.

I was removing the many additions you made of your novel to the Further Reading+External links sections of about 20 articles. You showed no sign of relenting. You were looking at any article with any kind of tenuous relation to your book, and placing it in the Further Reading section. The point of the Further Reading section is that after you've read the article you can delve deeper into the subject by reading a few additional books. I dispute your statement that 'in no case was a reference added to any article that was not discussed in my book'. Am I going to learn anything about William Monahan by reading your book? Do you mention William Monahan in your book? Also, the author himself is not supposed to be the one adding books to the Further Reading section. There's too much self-interest involved there.-BiancaOfHell 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a personal attack since you haven't deleted the authors noted above from each of the articles they entered their books and web sites in, and which I listed my book in. This amounts to censorship.

I'm not responsible for correcting everything at Wikipedia, but in this case I became aware that you were adding your book, IMO willy nilly, to article after article. Perhaps those other books belong in the Further Reading section, and have been added by readers, or perhaps they don't belong. It's not always easy to tell.-BiancaOfHell 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the authors mentioned, London, Zacks, Whelan, all of whom list their works under Further Reading, added their own listings. They also referenced their own web sites. They did not have surrogates do so. Nor is this required. The objective here is information. Author do promote their own work. They do so by appearing on radio talk shows, getting their books reviewed, making themselves available to the press, and yes, posting their novel and web site in Wikipedia. Promotion is not the problem since without it readers will not know about books that pertain to their areas of interest. The problem here is that you've decided to censor articles and only remove one reading. You may be able to justify your actions to yourself but I don't think you'll get much support from anyone else.

Promotion is a problem. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. It isn't the place for promotional material, and you have made your intentions in that respect clear. You are allowed to promote your book, but not at Wikipedia.-BiancaOfHell 21:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, without promotion, the William Monahan article for example, you wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. By your logic you may want to delete that article, since it promotes Monahan. But I'm glad it's there. I found it useful, just as I am glad other writers added their books to articles. It gave me some good sources. YYour actions constitute a personal attack and censorship.

You're losing sight of what's going on here. Say you came here and looked up the Barbary Wars and wanted to read more about the subject. Then you'd look at the Further Reading section. This section has to be respectable, with only notable books on the subject listed. It shouldn't have a promotional bias/list of recently published books. How many people have read your book so far? A handful. It's not exactly notable yet.-BiancaOfHell 22:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got nothing further to add. All of the books are recent. Your actions constitute censorship. They are also a personal attack as you have acknowledged. I'd like the arbitrator to determine an outcome.

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: under investigation

Advocate Status:

None assigned.