Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Haseler

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer: Some, but I don't think it is relevant

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: Persecuted

'''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:

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Some help and advice

Summary:
As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I found an old article I had posted on Lords reform. As not much had been done to it, I decided to try and improve it. As I couldn't find anyway to edit it without being online, and since I'm an "incrementalist" and have to see what I get to work out how it the article should "work" I created what I thought would be article specific sub pages (Ok I now know Wiki doesn't have that)

Unfortunately, what I can only say are "vultures" suddenly appeared out of the night and started circling, what was clearly a very provision cut and paste from some political web sites and not intended as a final article. Now I'm now stuck, because if I try to consolidate the pages, they will only be immediately criticised, and I get the feeling that some people have not even looked at what has/is being done with the article and are commenting on some of the admitted daft names I used as markers.

What I want to be able to do is to work on the article a bit (hopefully in a public forum so I can invite in a few others) but I'm now seriously impeded (?) and intimidated by this constant harassment and feeling of impending doom of the "vultures".

(It does not help that I've been up to 2am two nights in a row trying to beat this stupid race to the deletion deadline! - and my spelling goes to pot when I’m tired)

What I want is a bit of time and space to get the article together - I'd also love some advice on how to cover this subject in a way that is suitable for wikipedia.

What I am now finding is that I'm not writing information which people would expect in the article but "defensively" trying to justify everything with quotes - I couldn't even find any advice on the standard format of a quote in the help.

I've posted a request for help at the waterpump. I don't have access to the chat rooms. It's all got to be ready before the beginning of Nov. when it will obviously be in the public interest because of the queen’s speech.

Please Help!Mike 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. To top it I can't see how to make the above link go to Lords reform! PPS. And my PC is now on the blink!

Discussion:
There literally isn't time to get the article into a fit state before it will be deleted. I may not be the best writer, but what really gets me is that none of it was ready to be criticised, I was still getting the hang of the bold. This is precisely what happened last time when I was mugged on incrementalism. The constant kicking was so distracting I just hadn't the heart to put anything more into the article.

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer: No one came to help

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer: No

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer: 5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer: 0

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer: -10

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer: To have advocates that can keep away the vultures so there is time to get an article started before the vultures start pressin delete!

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer: Not bother to come to Wikipedia in the first place. I've never known such a hostile place where people smile as they stab you with a knife, even muggers have some heart, but not wikipedia, nothing will let a new author have time to start an article.

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * None assigned.

Notes for other Advocates:

I have no idea what happened here. No one was assigned this case, but the Advocee filled it out as though the case was closed. Can I get some second opinions? אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  21:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Case closed. No further comment from the Advocee. אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)