Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Rmagick

Case Filed On: 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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: policy violation, removes dispute tag rather than work to resolve the disagreement, removes any additions, references, or information that does not fit his personal bias against therapeutic schools.

'''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: First tried to modify article with accurate information and add references. They would be reverted back to original immediately. Even changing a single word would result in it being changed back to original version - I changed the clearly biased word "detainee" to "student" and he changed it back AND deleted the Dispute of accuracy tag.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: The ability to have an article with a neutral point of view and add references etc that fairly represents these schools rather than it being a platform for a single person with a grudge. This person is part of a small online community with a grudge against these schools and is using wikipedia as a soapbox for their beliefs.

Summary:
There are a small number of people who actively despise therapeutic schools. Most of these people, such as this man who lives in Denmark, have no personal knowledge or experience with therapeutic schools. The general tone of the articles represents their POV - focus on the negative, use loaded words such as "detainee" instead of "student" - put references to single, personal anecdotes as "evidence" and "fact" and remove any changes or additions that are not explicitly negative. This user also states something negative then adds a citation. In many cases if you actually read the source, it does not support in any way the statement he is trying to support with references. It may be that he knows most people will not click the little citation number to read the actual document, and therefore he can give weight to his article (claim it is referenced) with a citation that does not state what he claims it states.

I am particularly troubled by this user's belief that he/she can simply remove the dispute tag and erase any changes to an article, as if Wikipedia is his/her personal website. I know that this will simply grow as this user adds more and more schools to wikipedia and describes them all as he sees fit.

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: open

Advocate Status:
 * Accepted, currently communicating with editor via email. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)