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

Case Filed On: 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Case Opened On: 11:14, 04 March 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, content dispute, personal attack, vandalism, sockpuppetry

'''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:

What has been done so far:

1) Warnings and comments have been left on Classicjupiter2's talkpage, and the user has also been blocked for a short while: *

2) User:Jaimie Henry made at an attempt to solve the dispute via mediation cabal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-24_Surrealism

3) A suspected sockpuppetry (SSP) page was created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Classicjupiter2

4) 2 different Checkuser analyses were performed, both confirming Classicjupiter2's usage of sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2

5) Most of these sockpuppet accounts have been blocked by an administrator.

6) Both the Surrealism article and its talk page currently have protected status, but this cannot last forever.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Would like to know how to deal with Classicjupiter2's vandalism & mischief effectively and finally, so that he will not continue to vandalize and interfere with consensus for the Surrealism article.

Summary:
The nature of this dispute is that Classicjupiter2 has created several sockpuppets in order to vandalize the Surrealism article. One possible motive for his vandalism is because a vanity link (for the website owned by Keith Wigdor "surrealismnow.com") was removed because it was non-noteworthy and also violated NPOV guidelines. It appears that Classicjupiter2 and his sockpuppets attempted to sway the consensus towards the inclusion of the link within the article, but really, the consensus was that this link was only that of an emerging, amateur internet artist who is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Now that the link has been removed, Classicjupiter2 and his proven sockpuppets have been vandalizing the Surrealism article. At the moment, the article and its talk page have protected status.

Discussion:
First, I propose conducting a straw poll on the article's talk page to confirm consensuses. Do you want to do this?
 * This is fine by me, but some of the editors named in this case haven't edited in awhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, by me. What would the poll questions be? Also, as a named participant in this process... well, what does that mean? What is expected of participants? Thanks, --sparkit TALK 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that, although I'm not quite sure what is required for us to "confirm consensus". Further explanation would be appreciated.  Thanks.--TextureSavant 23:29, 6 March 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: open

Advocate Status:
 * Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs).