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

Case Filed On: 15:30, 7 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: content dispute with minor personal attacks

'''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: Wikiquette, Negotiation -, Disengage - I've walked away from the page for several days, some others involved seem to have as well but some have not.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Advice and possibly assistance and representation if needed

Summary:
I am an employee of Angie's List and have identified myself as such on my user page as well as the Angie's List Talk page. The Angie's List article came to my attention in January when someone from outside the company pointed it out to me after noticing there were some negative and inaccurate claims on the page. Before doing anything I registered as a user and I contacted ONUnicorn who had made previous edits to seek advice. ONUnicorn took out some of the negative, unsourced information (I did not ask her to do this). I made a few edits to get corrected and updated information on the page. 24.163.255.34 thought it sounded like an advertisement and reverted it back to the version before ONUnicorn's edits which included a correction of the logo. ONUnicorn requested a peer review of the article around this time. At that point I decided to take myself out of the editing since even though I tried to remain neutral, I may have been showing some bias. I also sent an email to Wikipedia that was answered by Jeandre du Toit, because I thought that some of the statements may be considered libel and that Wikipedia might be able to or want to do something about it. He suggested I contribute to the talk page and email Brad Patrick for further help. Brad also just recommended making my points on the talk page. I then took my suggestions to the Talk page. The article has gone back and forth ever since. 24.163.255.34 added a section about financial and membership information that is entirely unsourced and pure speculation. Others have tried discussing with him/her the inclusion of this unsourced information and speculation. He/she continued to revert and edit without taking advice and suggestion of others. 24.163.255.34 claims that the "ignore all rules" policy applies in this case. The article is now protected from editing.

It's probably pretty obvious that I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia and I need advice on how to proceed. I'm not sure what my level of involvement should be since I am affiliated with Angie's List, but I would like to help in coming to an agreeable resolution. I am not happy with the current state of the article and I don't believe that it is npov (bias aside). Obviously it's bad for our company to have these negative statements/accusations on Wikipedia but I also want to avoid turning it into an advertisement because I know that is not what Wikipedia is for.

If you need more detail please let me know. Also, I apologize that I didn't link more in the summary but I couldn't figure out the proper way to do it.

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: