Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/MensKeperRa

Case Filed On: 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

• MensKeperRa (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• Jefferson_Anderson (talk · contribs)
• Hanuman_Das (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• Allen H. Greenfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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: Attempts at civil discussion, despite previous deletions of this article, have been fruitless.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: I would like to see greater admin involvement and scrutiny of the various entries for occultists.

Summary:

Recently, a number of occultists, authors of texts in the field that are marginal at best, began entering their own Wikipedia articles. Two of these authors, Gerald Del Campo and Allen Greenfield initially had their auto-biographical articles removed. The Greenfield article was removed and it was stated that Greenfield was a "non note-worthy person" by the admin who closed it. When the articles were repeatedly reproduced admins put a lock on them. Now the Allen Greenfield article has been replaced by one user, Hanuman_Das under the heading of "Allen H. Greenfield." Another user, Jefferson_Anderson, continues to remove my critical comments about Mr. Greenfield's academic credentials (which come from the Universal Life Church, a notorious mail-order / on-line diploma mill and dispenser of ecclesiastical titles.) Both of these user accounts have been tagged "sock puppets" in the past and this may just be an attempt to introduce questionable content into Wikipedia for some self-serving end.

Oddly, the debate has heated since the first articles were deleted and it would seem that these two authors (who belong to the same quetionable organization of "Gnostic Bishops" and who have their works published by the same small publishing company) have rallied their supporters to by-pass the normal process whereby articles are reinstated. This is getting out of hand. If something is not done about this problem (and that done soon) a dangerous precedent will be established allowing any marginal personality, self-published author, or crack-pot in the areas of the occult, UFOlogy, and the paranormal to first create then have another recreate self-serving "biographies" to advance their own agendas, pet theories, and delusions.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a source for reliable, factual information. It is fast turning into a means for little-known occultists to advertise themselves and their books. Please, someone with some authority, look into this. Eyes down, human. 23:45, 31 January 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: closed

Advocate Status: It appears that the filer of this case is not interested in pursuing it.--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - User:MensKeperRa abandoned his Wikipedia account February 4, 2007. --Mattisse 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)