Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Spylab

Wikipedian filing request:

• Spylab (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• Mitsos (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• Hrisi Avgi (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: Point of view pushing (Greek neo-Nazism), widespread reverting of productive edits (grammar, formatting, and referencing issues), 3RR violations, and repetitive deleting of Neutrality tag (even though many of the sources are blatantly biased). The user in question has a very blatant political agenda that he is using Wikipedia to promote. He has also demonstrated this in several other articles and talk pages.

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 have discussed the issues with him and others on the article's discussion page, but it is clear that the user in question doesn't respond to logical requests, and doesn't admit how biased he is being with the article. He has been abusive on some talk pages, including using racist language (even in his own profile section). He has made it clear that he will be persistent about reverting the article to a substandard version. Therefore, I feel there is no reasoning with him, and that the Wikipedia article will suffer because of that.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: Either mediation/protection of the Hrisi Avgi article, blocking User:Mitsos, or answers about what I should do to solve the problems regarding the article.

Summary:

I have made several productive edits to the article in question, in terms of grammar, syntax, linking, organizing similar sections together, verifiability and deleting point of view. The user in question has reverted many of those corrections without any proper explanation. He seems intent on promoting the opinions of the neo-Nazi group Hrisi Avgi as if they are neutral facts. He keeps adding biased content that is not verified by neutral sources, and has removed the Neutral tag, even though the article clearly has NPOV issues in terms of sources. He has been dishonest about the extent and reasons for reverting my edits. In his haste to promote his political agenda, he has reverted many changes that have nothing to do with content, but only with formatting and grammar issues.

Discussion:

For background, the article in question is fully protected, to encourage discussion on the talk page. Thanks Martinp23 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything Spylab wrote here is blatantly not true, see Talk:Hrisi Avgi. Mitsos 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• The evidence shows otherwise, and anyone can see that for themselves. Spylab 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again Spylab is lying. I have tried everything to stop the dispute. I have answered his accusations at Talk:Hrisi Avgi, but he doesn't seems to reply. I have conntacted with him personaly (see his talkpage) but again, he ignored me. Mitsos 12:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Attention - Mitsos. This area is intended for communication between Spylab and his mediator. Other editors are welcome to post here, but it is not really the place for debating Spylab's position. Please continue using the appropriate channels to communicate. Thankyou, →Bobby← 17:22, 27 November 2006 (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

• On behalf of the AMA. →Bobby←

Advocate Status:

• Looking into it.