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

Case Filed On: 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?  How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: Yes Important note:  '''I mistyped the page of interest.  It is Whole language, not while language!
 * Answer: It is a content dispute regarding (a) the addition of non-neutral information to the page on whole language and (b) the addition of information on whole math, which is a related, but distinct issue.

'''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: I have already recommended that merceris create a new page on Whole Math and suggested that he try to avoid weasel words.  (This is posted on his talk page; I'm sorry that I'm not savvy enough to be able to link to it.)  I made the mistake of completely reverting, not having read the suggestions on the dispute arbitration page (although, at that point, it wasn't a dispute).  After he changed it back, I rewrote some of the parts he included to make them relevant (keeping some of what he'd suggested for the opening paragraph) but still removing extraneous information, such as that about whole math.  I wrote on his talk page again to explain that his POV was non-neutral and that the information should be on a different page.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: I hope that merceris will be convinced to create a new page on his particular topic of interest.  If there are things I can do to avoid this in the future, I would also like to learn those.

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer: Somewhat.

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer: Somewhat.  He was very nice and wanted both sides to agree.  He and I did not agree, however, about sourcing.  He seemed to think that anything with a source from anywhere should be considered "sourced."  On that basis, merceris's sources were all legitimate, even though they were culled from propagandistic internet sites.  We also differed regarding NPOV.  Silktork seemed to think that any difference of opinion should be included, but I contend that not all differences of opinion represent sufficient difference to warrant inclusion.  For example, a contention that the sun revolves around the earth should not be considered legitimate opposition to current thinking on the planets.  It may be someone's opinion, to which they are entitled, but it is not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer: 5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer: 2

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer: 1

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer: More agreement about the key principles of NPOV and sourcing. Silktork cited the five pillars, and I have read them; my reading appears to support my perspective.

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer: The primary difference would be that I would incorporate as many legitimate aspects of the edit as possible. Subsequently deleting an objectionable portion might be seen less disfavorably by the editor. Kearnsdm 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AMA Information
Case Status: open

Advocate Status:
 * Approached both editors. SilkTork 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)