Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Gary Lorentzen

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



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: content dispute, questions of policy, editor's behavior and personal agenda

'''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 asked A.J.A. to make suggestions as to tone and language, but I get no response, only references to wikipedia policies. I've read them, and I'm not understanding what's wrong with the information I provided. Other users have suggested that A.J.A. is biased and prejudiced and allows only additions that he/she agrees with. I have asked A.J.A. (others have, too) to make suggestions and recommendations and edit only those places that are perceived as violations. The response was just 'NO.'

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: I expect that if there's a negative point of view allowed, that other more neutral information can be used on the same page. I expect there to be no censorship here. I expect reasonable responses from your so-called editors when I ask for specific suggestions that would avoid their deletions. I'm not a stupid person. I am an educator with a graduate degree, I understand objectivity and the need for reliable, valid information, but I also recognize censorship when I see it and I expect Wikipedia not to censor. If this is an encyclopedia, why can't there be a description of a college or any institution describing its history, location and its mission? If there is controversy, why can't that be presented showing all sides of the issue? I expect these things from Wikipedia, but A.J.A. seems to have his/her own agenda. And finally I expect a resolution that will neutralize the aggressive, prejudiced, 'I have the power' mentality among some of your editors.

Summary:
A.J.A. will not allow any neutral additions to the Kepler College article. I initially had language that was not exactly neutral, so I changed it and made it neutral, but A.J.A. still deletes it, allowing only the one negative point of view. It appears like censorship. There is a header called 'criticism and commentary', which appears to be a place to add opinions and quotes from sources that have commented on Kepler. But A.J.A. will allow NO further additions to the 'criticism and commentary'. I tried to create a header for the college's history and mission, which contained just facts, no additional commentary or promotion. Under Criticism and Controversy I quoted the President of the College, but that was too long and was deleted. Then I quoted just a small section of it and that was deleted, too. I was nice in the beginning, asking for further info, but I was treated rudely by A.J.A. and now I'm angry. Additionally, I am not allowed to create another article covering the same issues, so the only article on Kepler College is outrageously negative and not entirely truthful. Censorship is simply unacceptable and I expect you to control your over-zealous editor, A.J.A. and ensure that his/her agenda and prejudices are not used to keep legitimate information and ideas off of Wikipedia.

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: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Got it. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 02:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't look into it enough. User block indefinetly WP:NLT. Will have under pending for the next week just in case he is unblocked. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 02:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Closed, user has not been unblocked, or rescinded their legal threats. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 01:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)