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

Case Filed On: 18:36, 24 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: The Security section is innacurate and not neutral point of view.

''Windows NT and its successors .. are not designed with Internet security in mind as much since, when they were first developed, Internet use was less prevalent'', Microsoft_Windows#Security

'''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:

Informal mediation ..

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?


 * Answer: Ask the authors to provide citations or correct the section to reflect the historical reality.

Summary:
I can't really add a lot, it's up to the author(s) of that section to argue their own case, with citations from the time and not any opinions that may have been said retrospectivly. Produce any disinterested statements from reputable parties, at the time, that Windows NT and it's sucessors was not designed for the Internet. What 'less prevalent' means in relation to the technical innards of an OS is meaningless.

Discussion:
This is a little sparse and for someone that hasn't been tracking this activity a lot, it's hard to follow or figure out what is going on. If this is just a simple manner of getting a statement cited, there should be a tag on it to request one, unless there was one and it has been repeatedly removed. In any case, there really needs to be more information to go on, otherwise it's going to take a long time for someone to dig into this. Thanks. -Cquan 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a simple enough request. That section posits certain opinions that are not backed up by any historical facts. Unless the laws of logic don't apply on Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the author. The onus is on the author(s) to provide factual references or have it corrected. The responce up to now have been a variety of fallacious argumentum absurdum and references to poor grammar.

emacsuser 16:28, 26 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.