Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Historian2

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:


 * User_talk:Historian2
 * User_talk:Danezra
 * User_talk:Daniel575
 * User_talk:Danezra
 * User_talk:Daniel575

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: Requested Arbitration, dispute resolution, contacted sysops, requested page protection

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: some advice

Summary:
I feel like giving up. Daniel575 has constantly attack me, reverted my changes, and writes unceasingly abusive comments.

In addition, I had no interest in getting involved with wikipedia because my time spent on research does not allow me such luxuries, except that I noticed he had provided unsourced slander on two well known Rabbis. I have been disappointed in the resolution process because, although his changes have been deleted, it appears to me that I must become forever attached to the page to defend Daniel575 from re-introducing his POV. I will not even begin to discuss his extreme neturei karta style anti-zionist POV which he adding to other wikipages which I have neither the time or desire to do anything about.

In summary, I feel that if I must become wedded to my contributions, forever defending them - then for the me the wiki system does not work, and it will be taken over by extremist POV's like Daniel575. Please tell me I am wrong.


 * Personally, I don't guard my past edits, after a consensus is reached I move on to other articles. Every now again I look back at some of my earlier contributions and they are virtually all there. Also, problem users are in the minority and they nearly always affect several other editors. Procedures such as Request for Comment are effective in encouraging improvement in those who want to change and for those who don't want to change, this is the first step to a permanent block. I haven't researched this case enough to advise whether a Request for Comment is the next appropriate step, however in my experience the wiki system is reasonably functional. Addhoc 13:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am really just looking for advice on how to handle what appears to me to be a harassing, problem user. Thanks for any help. --Historian2 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha. This is just too pathetic to be true. And not even informing me of it. I am not yet sure whether or not to respond to this pathetic crying figure who cannot accept the fact that not the entire world carries his own POV sunglasses, blinding out the plain truth which the entire world is aware of. Historian2, please leave if you wish to do so. And if you are serious about this, I am going to bring quite a few things against you also. About your lies, your hypocrisy, your inconsistency and your extremely POV attitude. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniel575, this isn't a debating forum. Addhoc 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So stay out of it then. Your intervention is not wished and not appreciated. You are not an administrator. I am not interested in having Historian2 'prosecute' me without me being allowed to at the same time bring proof of his own lies, POV attitude, vandalism and hypocrisy. Either this is going to become a huge discussion, or this is the end of any and all cooperation to this thing from my side. Cooperation which might, on the other hand, exist if I am allowed to defend myself and to simultaneously attack Historian2 in a way similar to the way in which he is attacking me. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Daniel575, however this page still isn't a debating forum. Historian2 doesn't require your permission to seek advice, and for the avoidance of doubt, I certainly don't require your consent to be engaged as his advocate. Addhoc 19:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I understood the intention of this project to be to reach a peaceful understanding between Wikipedians, without the involvement of administrators. I do not see how such a thing is possible when the accused party is not allowed to defend himself. Do you expect me not to object when someone accuses me of a POV look, personal attacks; calling me a 'harassing, problem user', accusing me of reverting his edits - while he reverts mine just as often and much more aggressively. You expect me to take a walk around the block? Forget it. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniel575, are you thinking of WP:MEDCAB? My understanding is that several Wikipedians, including highly experienced admins have accused you and indeed blocked you in regard to those concerns. Addhoc 19:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My understand is that the administrators involved are ignorant idiots. Aside from that, my understanding is that my blood pressure is rising to dangerously high levels. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniel575, could I suggest you take a short break from editing? Addhoc 19:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you cannot. If things are becoming too much for you, maybe you would like to do that yourself instead. Your automatic position in defense of Historian2 is not making my mood any better. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daniel575, my concern was purely for your well being. Could I also clarify again that I am his advocate. Addhoc 20:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, he needs an advocate to protect himself from me. If you would spend some 50 hours in investigating the case - and not only from links which he sends you - you would resign from the case immediately. Well, unless you are like lawyers of the type which enjoy defending people like Saddam Hussein and Adolf Eichmann. (Note that I do not intend to compare Historian2 to either of those in terms of what they did. Just that in terms of the hopelessness of defending them, they are equal.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. As it happens I'm thinking of prosecuting, not defending. Addhoc 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good. So am I. As a side note: we really are starting to act like a bunch of idiots here. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, could I confirm this page isn't a discussion forum. Thanks, Addhoc 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion:
Following this debate and further discussion on Daniel's user page, filed this RfC. Addhoc 16:59, 28 September 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: Yes and No

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: 3 (Advocate was great, but the process limited him)

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer: 2 (Seems to me only temporary fix, I think the problem will reappear, I will edit this form again in a couple of months)

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer: Something that would inspire all parties to take the issue seriously

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer: I would do the same.

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status: Accepted, Addhoc 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)