Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/April 2007/ChampagneComedy

Case Filed On: 06:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your problem:
an article, South Australian general election campaign, 2006, was created as a fork of a very long article, South Australian general election, 2006. an editor with no prior involvement in the page, who had an axe to grind, nominated the new article for deletion. the deletion nom got a lot of support initially. me and another editor worked on the campaign article to improve it substantially. the vote result was 4 keep, 6 delete and 3 merge. an admin just deleted it and now i can't even find it to do any merging -- although South Australian general election, 2006 is blocked from editing because of the same users.

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: --CyclePat 06:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pending discussion to be assigned.
 * Case closed, gave advice, did not receive response.