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

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: This is a dispute over content, policy violations are what I wish to avoid. I am rather new to Wikipedia and I don't want to accidentally step over any lines. However, I really do believe that I am in the right in this case, and at least two other users thus far have agreed.

'''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've sought a third opinion per WP:3O, which was given in my favor. I also filed for [informal mediation], which has not yet begun. The other user in the case has indicated that (s)he prefers to go through formal mediation and has filed for that, which I have agreed to. I filed for page protection when this user began continually reverting the page but this request was declined. Of course, I have also extensively discussed the matter with the other user (see the "Quixtar" section on the article's talk page.)

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: I would just like advice on how to proceed here, in making a defense of my position without stepping on toes or breaking any rules.

Summary:
My side of the problem is that Insider201283 has consistently removed all material pertaining to Quixtar from the Google Bomb article. At first, these concerns were valid as a primary-source blog was the only source cited. I then found a secondary source which reported on Quixtar's google bomb to remove these concerns. However, Insider201283 has continued to assert that "the blog" is the only source. After a third opinion agreed with me that the USC Annenberg article is indeed a reliable secondary source, Insider201283 still refuses to allow a summary of that source to be used for the article, instead insisting on posting his/her own views of the situation.

I really couldn't care less about Quixtar/Amway either way, but the other user involved has identified as a "Quixtar supporter" on the talk page. I believe that this bias may be clouding his or her judgment, and would like assistance in bringing this up without violating WP:CIVIL.

Discussion:
This case has been closed on the grounds of my proposal to Disengage for a while pending my contact with Google.


 * Case closed. -- Anthony.

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

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer: Yes

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer: Yes

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: 4

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

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer: It's quite helpful, I can't think of anything at this time. Seraphimblade 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer: The dispute was resolved successfully and amicably, so I guess it went well enough! Seraphimblade 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * --  Anthony  cfc   (Talk to Me)    (s)  (e) 20:45 19/Oct/2006 (UTC) 
 * Willing to work with advocate Anthony on this one.--Amerique 02:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)