Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Wolfgang Borman
Case Filed On: 02:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedian filing request:
Other Wikipedians this pertains to:
Wikipedia pages this pertains to:
- Australian Union of Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Questions:
[edit]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: policy violation, content dispute
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: none
What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
- Answer: Rebecca will stop censoring articles
Summary:
[edit]I am the official spokesperson for the Australian Union of Students, an association formed in 1993. Recently I became aware of an article in Wikipedia purporting to be about our association. Today I updated the article to make it more informative and factually correct. About half an hour after I had updated the article, Rebecca changed the article back to what it had been. This was done, not with the intention of helping internet users, but with the intention of preventing internet users from finding out information and ideas. I have looked in the Wikipedia policies, and they specifically forbid changing an article back to what is was. For example, if she wanted to show that there used to be an association of the same name, before our association was formed, she should have done this by adding another paragraph to what I had written. If Rebecca considers that, say, Moslems are crackpots, and I have no doubt that she does, that does not give her the right to delete articles about Moslems. According to Rebecca's page, she has special privileges for editing pages, and it is of concern that a person with special privileges should commit a clear violation of a policy.
Discussion:
[edit]I would have to notice that Rebecca (talk · contribs)'s edit summary "rv crackpottery" is quite uncivilized. I will ask her to explain herself in the talk page.
On the other hand, in wikipedia there is a rule that an article about an organization cannot rely solely on its website. In order for your text to survive, you must provide references from reliable independent sources, see policies wikipedia:Verifiability and "reliable sources". Surely, you are aware that you may create a very fancy website run by 3 guys based in a student's dorm. Mukadderat 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wolfgang Borman (talk · contribs) appears not to have responded or made another edit to Wikipedia since February 11. Am closing case for nonresponse. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Followup:
[edit]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
[edit]Case Status: closed
Advocate Status:
Case closed for nonresponse -- requester has not made an edit on Wikipedia since February 11 and has not responded to queries. --Shirahadasha 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)