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

Case Filed On: 21:30, 21 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: Content dispute (with some personal attack and policy violation mixed in)

'''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.''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Archive_27#Request_for_Comments:_Have_Reverts_Been_Made_Without_Explanation.3F and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Archive_27#Request_for_Comments:_May_POV_of_Footnoted_Authors_Be_Mentioned.3F
 * Answer: Requests for Comments:

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Good advice about how to pursue more neutral and accurate content at the abortion article.

Summary:
Obviously, the subject of abortion is controversial, and therefore some disputes are inevitable. However, I am having difficulty making even the most minor corrections to this article, specifically to the "fetal pain" subsection of this article. The editor Severa reverts without explanation, and other editors (mainly Andrew c) accuse me of "POV pushing" for no valid reason.

If you peruse the discussion page for the abortion article, you'll see that myself and another editor (Cat Whisperer) urged that this and other subsections be shortened, so that readers can get details at the linked main articles (e.g. the main fetal pain article). This was opposed despite Wikipedia policy on article length and on summarizing main articles. I also repeatedly asked why this article contains no subsection having biological info about the embryo or fetus that is being destroyed, and this question of mine was ignored. I tried to make the content of the fetal pain subsection into a more neutral and accurate summary of the main fetal pain article, but was reverted without any explanation from the reverter (Severa) as to why she believed that a consensus for my edits might be unwarranted. So, it's just been a very frustrating experience upgrading this content.Ferrylodge 21:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion:
Hi cocoaguy. Thanks for taking this case. I look forward to your advice.Ferrylodge 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if anything's happening here. It would still be much appreciated to receive some advice about these matters. Thank you.Ferrylodge 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry i have been un-able to do much on wikipedia over the last month. I will find someone else to help you. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 02:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll look forward to getting help from someone else here.Ferrylodge 01:03, 1 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:
 * Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 14:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)