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

Case Filed On: 07:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:


 * all articles listed on
 * all articles listed on
 * all articles listed on

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 disputes, personal attacks, policy violations, and more.

'''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: Deletion review, WP:3O, see Jews for Judaism, see TfD, see VfD, see inigmatus user contribs.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Some help. Please! we're desperate. Even help in putting together this advocacy request is desperately needed since the problem is vast! In short, Jewish editors have bandwagoned many good, properly sourced Messianic Judaism articles to VfD death. Jewish admins enforce the deletions. Death threats have been issued to MJ editors, and over the course of 6 months we are now down to just two editors who barely have time to answer all the VfD charges, rebuttals, information removals, and hundreds of hours of work from many MJ editors and non MJ editor contributors are being totally undone. VfDs are out of process, highly POV, and no one on the opposition is offering any real solutions to their own disputes except catch 22 requests that get VfDed for trying anyways. Requests for help are met with a slew of Jewish editors downplaying the disputes, pushing POV that MJ is not Judaism or MJ is a contradition, or MJ doesn't exist. We need advocates, desperately before there is no more Messianic Judaism representation on wiki at all.

Summary:
There is far too much dispute going on to be specific right now. In fact, to gather all the evidence would take hours which we (or I) don't have. That is part of the problem - not enough MJ editors, and too many antiMJ editors engaged in territorial "defense" over their ownership of Judaism stuff on wiki. If anything we need someone to put together our case. Someone please go through my contribution list as well as the contribution lists of others that are listed in this advocacy request. We are overwhelmed, and I'm personally thinking of quitting.

Discussion:
I understand that you may require lots of time to gather all evidence. But the most grave accusations, such as death threats, absolutely must be referenced. Mukadderat 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still working on it. The issues with the death threats have been dealt with. It's the general animosity of non Messianic Jewish editors towards Messianic Jewish editors that is causing an atmosphere of repression on Wikipedia. It's great that they police our articles like some sort of mass secret service, but we're asking for third party, unaffiliated advocates to regularly get involved in providing third party, non Jewish and non Messianic neutral opinions on VfDs, TfDs, reverts, discussions, and more. We simply can not cope with the number of non Messianic Jewish editors that seek to delete, revert, recreate, and destroy Messianic Jewish editing contributions, by their sheer weight in numbers alone, irregardless if they have followed process or not, or whether their arguments are substantiated or not. The number of Messianic Jewish articles exceed the number of Messianic Jewish editors and admins, and as such, much content has been removed as attention to multiple issues at once just eat up the time and effort of MJ editors. We want to contribute, but we can't if we are spending ALL of our time in pointless VfDs and TfDs that are obviously out of process, or immediately posted when a new article is created, and no one is really addressing issues through normal means: ie article and tempalte talk pages. In other words, we don't have enough people to police MJ articles. That is the heart of this advocacy request. The people that do police the articles are of a group of editors that would rather see no MJ articles on Wikipedia at all. At leat the MJ editing community is trying to make a sincere effort to improve MJ articles. The opposition often times refuses to take the issue to the talk pages, and go straight to VfDs, where if someone isn't watching out for the VfD postings, or the pages aren't policed, the VfD discussion turns ugly before any MJ editor has had a chance to voice their opinion on the matter. Consensus is many times ignored, and issues are not addressed that the MJs raise when raising objections to deletions of material. Nothing shows up on talk pages, reverts happen quickly, and MJ issues and articles are encouraged by the Jewish editing community to be patrolled by its members - with every little issue being tagged, easily referenced, and pushed to start bandwagon enforcement of non Messianic Jewish POV. I hope you can see the fustration I and others have with this. inigmatus 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * uninvolved (almost) party: I doubt that this request can be taken seriously. What the user wrote above in the "please help" section, the harsh paranoid language, is a grave violation of several core rules of wikipedia, and for that reason alone. It also doesn't make sense to say that a page not existing is a page relevant to the discussion, it's actually trying to challenge an AFD again in a strange way. Amoruso 19:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks This is a perfect example of the problem. Before we've even compiled evidence to ask for help from an advocate of all things, here you are poisoning the well before the evidence is presented. To be honest, I'll just let the evidence of this kind just come to this page. Perhaps you could also patrol my contribution list to find out where else we've asked for help too? I think it's great that there's a link now to this page on the Wikiproject Judaism discussion and elsewhere. I suppose User:IZAK and others have been busy informing the rest of the community of this page's "alarming development" too. Can't you guys just back off for a moment and just let me contribute to our own case first, before assuming what "evidence" I'm bringing? inigmatus 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been stated that it would take 'hours' to compile references to the problem. I can assure you, as an experienced advocate, that advocating and resolving this will take hundreds of hours and if you really want help, it would be worthwhile for you to go ahead and do the work of putting together a list of links, plus commentary on what you want noticed about the information at the link... and really spell out what it is you are having a problem with, who did what wrong, what edits to what articles were whatever-they-were... really, do not expect an advocate to try to keep up with a running argument and put things aright for you. Stop editing and start working on the problem you are having, take the time necessary to resolve it, and then go back to editing. If there really is a problem on as grand a scale as you represent in your request, and nobody is fixing it, and you want it fixed, it is up to you to do some work to fix it. An advocate cannot represent your side without understanding what your side is. However, if they can understand the problem, and if necessary, they can get more advocates to help. I would be glad to help you, but frankly, I wouldn't touch this as it stands without a lot of work from you. You need to decide if it's worth the work or not. Remember, most POV issues are eventually resolved just by the day-to-day editing of wikipedia by thousands of editors, so if you ignore the problem, it might go away on its own. If you don't think it will though, you need to do the work to get things started. Message me on my talk page if you are ready to dig in and work with an advocate, and I'll see what I can do. User:Pedant 09:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Doubtless I am too connected to this dispute to serve as an advocate or otherwise in this case. However, it would be helpful to the Association of Members' Advocates for you to provide, on this page, a few specific examples, with specific cites or other evidence if possible, of the most severe problems you are describing. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:56, 9 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: NEW

Advocate Status:
 * None assigned.