Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/April 2007/Jill Teed

Case Filed On: 15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

• Jill Teed (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs)
• Vintagekits (talk · contribs)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• Daniel O'Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

• Answer:No

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

• Answer: Concerted efforts by pro-Irish republican individuals to censor my edit re Daniel O'Connell (minor edit, just adding "albeit a majoritarianist and intimidatory" to first paragraph

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 contacted User:Domer48 and he agreed (on my talk page) not to make any further reverts until an administrator had reviewed the case. I contacted User:One Night In Hackney and he pointed out that he had previously been warned by User:ReyBrujo about his habit of making unacceptable reversions and edits to other people's work product, and he said that he would not revert anything "until I am blocked as WP:SOCK". User:One Night In Hackney is apparently accusing me of being a sockpuppet ("Socky McSockpuppet"). User:Vintagekits has a history of sockpuppetry, I might point out. Then User:Vintagekits made the revert in question, showing that these individuals are acting in concert.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: Fair treatment.

Summary:

Again, 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:again, I contacted User:Domer48 and he agreed (on my talk page) not to make any further reverts until an administrator had reviewed the case. I contacted User:One Night In Hackney and he pointed out that he had previously been warned by User:ReyBrujo about his habit of making unacceptable reversions and edits to other people's work product, and he said that he would not revert anything "until I am blocked as WP:SOCK". Then User:Vintagekits made the revert in question, showing that these individuals are acting in concert.

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: closed

Advocate Status:

• Closing, person requesting assistance was a sock of a banned user. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)