Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/francesannesolomon1

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: 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: I have written to her in the talk page for re-evaluation counseling to ask why she has applied automatic revert to my considered edits.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: support to understand how to handle this.

Summary:
Over the past few days I edited the re-evauation counselling page site as I believe is my right as a member of the public, registered wiki member and someone acquainted with this movement (RC). User Sarah Williams has called me a socketpuppet (I can find no full description of this crime but understand that it is an offense of some sort and punishable in some way). She has not however registered a formal complaint as far as I know. Sticks and stones wont break my bones but she has also left a message in the talk of Re-evaluation Counselling saying that she has applied an automatic reverse on all my entries. (!) This work took me a long time to do, and I am sure there must be some guidelines or rule related to such unilateral aggressive behavior and actions. I do not know if she has the right to do this, or by what authority. I would like to become a helpful and productive member of the wiki commnunity but am not encouraged by this beginning at all, dont understand the basis for it and dont know how to deal with it. I left her a long explanation on her user talk and in response to her accusations in the rc:talk re sockpuppet,(which sounds like a sesame street character). However I would like some ongoing advice and support about how to protect my rights and the rights of wiki readers to view my editions. thanks very much in advance. frances anne solomon

A quick check on Re-evaluation Counseling history shows that over the last few days this new user has posted a blizzard of uncommented and uncited smearing allegations against both living individuals and co-counselling in general, many of which appear to be nothing more than personal opinion. These pages have been carefully constructed over several years in hundreds of edits by many contributors and I have simply been defending them against this extremely POVist user. I have attempted to comment all reverts and explain them, but these attempts are ignored. This user is so new and so troublesome that I think it's highly likely they are a sockpuppet for one of the existing anti-RC editors who have previously entered into discussion on Talk:Re-evaluation Counseling. Sarah Williams 17:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The above isn't true. The changes that I carefully suggested have been made many times in the past by many many other people. They are not new. Please see the talk pages of re-evaluation counseling, co-counselling, harvey jackins for the history of these ongoing discussions. Basicaly the rc community doesnt want anything negative said about this organisation, and has a history of suppressing dissent. So certain individuals have been sytematically removing any critical references to rc, thus censoring te entry.This isn't fair to the average reader, or those intersted in finding out about this organisation. The only difference here is that user sarah williams has decided to distract from the important core issues at stake here, by making this extremely personal, running smears against me personally. They aren't founded, it's not right. She has a history of doing this. The emphasis should be on the issues, and how to reach a neutral rounded profile for the wiki records. I would like support to know how to do this, being a new user. I have a right to contribute to Wikipedia and this entry, and I do not appreciate the personal smear. Frances-Anne Solomon

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:
 * Contacting initiating party--Amerique 00:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Left message. Advocee seem to have lost interest. No response to initial message.--Amerique dialectics 07:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)