Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Rainforest Alliance Guatemala

Rainforest Alliance Guatemala 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Case Filed On: 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your problem:
I am a representative of the conservation organization the Rainforest Alliance involved in a content dispute over the definition of my organization. Users have tampered with the definition of my organization and given it a bias against us. Other users, including colleagues of mine and others who are simply sympathetic to the cause, have tried to edit the definition and have made true attempts to maintain its neutrality. However, the latest case being a typical example, an anonymous user reverted the edits that would have given the definition a more neutral point of view and the person offered no explanation. I have made several arguments for the neutrality of the definition and against the criticisms, including at least one that is not backed by any citation, on the talk page. It appears that people who work for competing certifiers or who are simply sympathetic to their causes are sabatoging the definition of our organization.

I would like advice on how to make the following changes: I would like for the criticism of Rainforest Alliance to be published only in the criticism section. Now it is published both in the second paragraph of the definition and in the criticism section. I would also like the criticism of our child labor policy to be deleted since it is not backed up by a citation and because our standards prove the criticism factually innacurate and does so with a link to our standards as evidence.

And if it is possible to make those changes, I would like advice on how to prevent people, especially anonymous users, from reverting outright and without explanation the edits others make to the page.

Thanks in advance for any help.

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.