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

Case Filed On: 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your problem:
My problem is that Fireplace is making it very dificult for me to edit anything in reparative therapy. Regardless of how well sourced my information is, how much I have explained my position on the talk page, most of the content that I add is either immediately reversed, deleted, or rearranged out of the page. He gives excuses like it is not relevant, makes it sound controversial, is repetitive, is from an unreliable source, or taken out of context. In the talk page I explain the relevance, show statements that say there is a debate, show the new information is not repetitive, and argue the reliability of the sources. Sometimes he allows it, and then rearranges it out later, or puts in another section that doesn't make sense. Most of my references are from professional scholars, while much of his stuff comes from gay propaganda. I have tried discussing it on the talk page, putting up a banner for NPOV, putting up a banner requesting help from a psychologist, even going to expert web pages. The banners were removed and my pleas unanswered. I don't know much about other steps to resolution, which is one reason I am asking for advice.

The most recent discussion we had was that the article stated that the medical consensus is the sexual orientation is unchangeable. I added information about the theories of Klein that postulated that orientation was a dynamic, multi-variable process, with links to the article on Fluid sexuality. Fireplace said the argument was irrelevant, and not used by used reparative therapists. I pointed to several papers with reparative therapists quoting their work, and that it represented a legitimate alternative viewpoint. He then said that it didn't represent the mainstream position, and then proceeded to delete references in other articles, such as the majority of the Fluid sexuality article as well as the section in the Sexual orientation article and the link in the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid.

I don't know what to do. LGBT people who want to change represent a dispised minority, accused of the right of having "choosen" the orientation in the first place and attacked on the left for suggesting change is possible. Several of our articles have cookie cutter disclaimers that horribly misrepresent reparative therapy (like NARTH), or have damaging quotes taken out of place (like Joseph Nicolosi). Is there any protection for minorities like us, or are we subject to the editing pleasure of our enemies (which outnumber us)? I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't know any procedures at all. Please help me.Joshuajohanson 07:13, 16 April 2007 (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:

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: NEW

Advocate Status:
 * None assigned.