Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Bksimonb

Case Filed On: 14:15, 19 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: War by apostates of NRM (BKWSU) against BKWSU

'''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: The case has already been through arbitration . As a result  was banned and the article placed under probation. However,  keeps re-incarnating as various sock puppets.


 * Update: The case is now been requested for arbitration review due to the continued disruption  (but rejected).

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: A well-written, informative, article that conforms to Wikipedia's standards and policies plus a civil, respectful, co-operative team of editors to maintain it. I also need to learn how to deal with this challenging situation such as how to use dispute resolution and arbitration enforcement procedures in an appropriate way without wearing out the patience of maxed-out admins or appearing to be "gaming the system" etc.

Summary:
The article in question has been the subject of much edit waring and a war of words on the talk page since April 2005. I am a member of the BKWSU and have been acting on behalf of an internal team as I described in my arbitration statement. We were very happy with the arbitration result however it has not made the article any easier to maintain since it is still subject to interference by 244 and now another biased and aggressive editor. On a positive note, I have established much better relations with one editor who favoured a negative view of the BKWSU,, in one of the brief spaces between the more aggressive bouts of 244's socks and.

Right now I am puzzled why I often get no response to admin requests. I appreciate that the clerk dealing with the case, Thatcher131, is taking a semi-break, but I sometimes wonder if I am doing something wrong in the way I reporting the problems. I am also puzzled why some editors who helped out in the past no longer go near the article or respond to questions. To be honest, I would like to know where I stand as a Wikipedian. Am I doing something so obviously wrong that it is not even worth telling me what it is?

The "anti" editors, are now pushing referenced negative quotes and references into the article. They are obviously cherry-picked to show up the BKs in the most unfavorable light. I am not sure how to ensure the article remains NPOV against this onslaught. They just argue aggressively and make accusations against other editors and the BKWSU in general that we are "hiding the truth" or "re-writing our history". How do I effectively ensure that the article more accurately reflects the academic sources that exist about the BKWSU, which, when read by themselves, don't really paint such a negative picture, which is appropriate, because the BKWSU is absolutely nothing like the "crazy, dangerous, misguided, deluded, devious, money-grubbing cult" these "POV warriors" are making the BKWSU out to be.

There are also a number of suspected socks of 244 on the page which haven't yet done anything outrageous enough to give the game away or report. If they are sockpuppets of 244, then i seem that he is refining his technique. How do I deal with this scenario. So far I am assuming good faith until proven otherwise but the edits they want to push are generally a chip off the old block in terms of his style.

I have an obvious stated conflict of interest. I would appreciate some guidance on how best to manage this. Right now "don't edit the article" isn't an attractive option since there is so much negative pressure on it and I appear to be the only one apart form holding the fort. There is a stong overlap between the objectives of Wikipedia and and article the BKWSU could live with. Please understand that a biased, misinformative "attack" article on Wikipedia can cause and organisation, especially an NRM, a lot of damage.

I would also like the opportunity to talk things over with a more experienced wikipedian just to get my bearings.

Discussion:
as the target of this......can i please ask that it been seen in the light of users and the anonymous account he used to block and build up a case to ban the other user mentioned? , and  are all bks, members of this new religious group and part of team attempting to control it......................their accounts seem to be used ONLY for editing(mostly reverting) the bkwsu article and putting in complaints about anyone else that tries to

this is just a more sophisticated attempt to build up a case against another editor and control the article and i must take offense at all the biased language being used at me

as i said on the discussion, i came back because i got the references to put back in what they had took out.......the first time i had all mine erased because although i knew them to be true i could not provide references , i have learnt what is required and i am proud of my editing record now. i have lost count of how many new citations or references i have provided

for all the accusation they have aimed at me and others i cannot see why they are allowed to carry on doing this Green108 16:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry..........i have to say that it does seem that a lot of the accusations they are a little made up or exaggerated and not really proven facts ,a case of throwing enough until some sticks


 * If I did not know these people I would be a little offended at being accused of "hateful", "aggressive", "anti-" "POV warrior" by them. Just to clarify though is another member of the BKWSU team and acting in tandem with BKWSU follower Simon. Green108 21:15, 8 May 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:
 * Sir James Paul