User:The Thadman/Advocacy Requests/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Return to my desk

Contents

[edit] Thelaughingman on Red Warrior

[edit] Hey there

Hello, I'm Steve and I'm from the Association of Members' Advocates, responding to your request. :-) I'll head on over to Red Warrior and investigate to see exactly what is going on. As an Advocate I cannot make anyone stop or behave in any particular manner, but I know the policies here on Wikipedia very well and I can discuss things on your behalf. In the meantime, could you put a detailed account of what's happened thusfar on my desk under Advocacy Requests? Thanks. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ((Copied from User_talk:Thelaughingman for convenience))

hey i think the problem with the red warrior page will be less than before. We and the guy were able to work out somethings but i think we will need some help on where to go from here. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelaughingman (talk • contribs).
No problem :-) If you would like me to, I can go over and clean up the article as it is now to bring it closer in line with the manual of style and section things off for proper analysis of points. If there is anything else I could help out with, don't hesitate to ask. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 02:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

YEs if you could help out the page with style thanks a bunch. I starting to become more involved with wikipedia and thanks for all the help.

[edit] request

please send me e-mail. Ste4k 08:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] edit dispute

I am requesting an advocate for a dispute I am having regarding an article.

The article is 'John Zerzan' My dispute is with a contributor named Moorlock.

My dispute is regarding the use of obscure, unreliable and derogatory source material for a biographical entry. Please see the discussion page for the article on John Zerzan. I have discussed my concerns with Moorlock, who disagreed. I then removed the passages which I felt violated the aformentioned Wiki rules for biographies.

I have received warnings about 'vandalism' on my talk page from Moorlock, and another message accusing me of inserting profanities from what looks like a Wiki editor.

Am I, or am I not allowed to remove material from an article which I feel in good faith violates Wiki rules?

Thank you for any assistance in this matter.

--Foamy Latte 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Zerzan

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your reply and your thoughtful comments. Yes, your offer to intervene is more than welcome and definitely in line with my thoughts concerning this article.

Just to reiterate regarding what I have already spelled out in the discussion page for the John Zerzan article:

  • references 25 and 28 (under the criticisms section) are taken from an obscure personal blog and written anonymously under the pseudonym 'longsword'. The general tone of the blog article is derogatory, at one point comparing Zerzan to the Taliban (actually "worse than"), and elsewhere stating that Zerzan's views "Dangerously approaches that of Nazism", and are "in the same spirit of fascist George Sorel who calls for the violent overthrow of all society." [Ironically, given Zerzan's anarchist views (i.e. against authority) he is actually voicing the exact opposite of facism]. Because Zerzan is a living author, I thought this was possibly libelous, even though the actual quotes taken from the blog were not themselves derogatory (I don't know if this makes a difference in terms of Wiki guidelines?).
  • references 31 and 32 are taken from a partisan website (Marxist), are written anonymously under the nom de plume 'Alain C' and again express a derogatory tone throughout. Here, Zerzan is compared to Joseph Mengele, and is accused of lying: [quote]".... by doing that, he is not even "mistaken". It is worse than that. He deliberately manipulates some information. In a word, he lies, that is to say he wants to deceive others." Again, in keeping with the spirit of Wiki policy regarding biographical articles about living authors, I honestly believed and in good faith felt that this was derogatory and potentially libelous.

Moorlock contends that because Zerzan is obscure (he is not; I cited examples of mainstream academic publications and national/international media interviews on the discussion page), that he felt justified in using obscure references for criticism. We disagreed.

I am not the first to have problems with Moorlock. He has been called to task in the same article for posting original material and for using frivolous criticisms (see discussion between Moorlock and NietzscheFan under Criticisms II on discussion page for John Zerzan).

As for my harsh tone, I admit to becoming exasperated with certain comments made by Tobyk777 who had not contributed any constructive suggestions to the article, and seemed to have joined in merely to trash the article's subject. Tobyk777's only postings reflect this, calling Zerzan 'evil' at least three times, a 'lunatic' and felt he should be put in a mental hospital. I realize all is fair on the discussion page, (at least not libelous), but my patience wore thin, for which I regret my response.

One last thing. I was warned on my personal talk page (going by the signature, a Wiki member?) for posting 'profanities' on the article discussion page. For the record, I did not utter any profanities. My tone with Tobyk777 was harsh, but not profane. I have no idea who my accuser is, but I wish for the evidence of the supposed profanities to be brought forward, or have the accuser apologize to me for this false allegation.

Thank you very much again for your quick reply to me, and for your interest in handling this dispute. --68.146.56.45 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem :-) I've removed the sources that are inappropriate under policy, and I have posted a section to discuss problems on the Talk page. My next step, if this goes well, is to then start tagging the page for Original Research, and then we can move from there. Hopefully the other editors will respect the edits that I have made, but if worse comes to worse, we can simply continue with the dispute resolution process. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sholom (talk|contribs)

This section is for the AMA case concerning Sholom.

Hi. I made an entry to AMA two days ago. Until I actually get an Advocate, I'm wondering what I can do to stop a stupid edit war (see my own talk page for info). Thanks. -- Sholom 13:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now I would have to say that your best bet would be to request for Semi-Protection. If approved, this would prevent anonymous users from editing the page, in a sense forcing the anonymous IP to either register and name themself, or stop the vandalism. First completely read over the policy WP:SEMI and follow the instructions that it gives. If I were not busy, myself, with a case I would be of more assistance, but please rest assured that we are dilligently searching for a suitable Advocate. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sort of a third party to this current dispute. I haven't been involved in editing Thelma Drake for a month or two, but I was involved in a revert war with the same anonymous user on the page, over similiar issues. I've been busy studying for the bar exam, so I haven't gotten involved in the new revert war flame-up. But I would just like to comment that Sholom has acted in good faith during the entire dispute, and in my opinion it is good for the admin community to help him and John Broughton on this one. Lucky Adrastus 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Minor addendum. I've since made some edits to support Sholom on the Thelma Drake page, so I'm no longer really a third party. Not that anyone cares about this minor edit, but I have a professional responsibility to be accurate. At least I think that's the rule -- otherwise I just failed the bar. Lucky Adrastus 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again -- I filed my AMA around a week ago or so. Other than your comment that "we are diligently searching for a suitable Advocate", nothing has happened (except the continuation of the edit war). The person involved is engaging in a war of wills, telling us that he will keep up his behavior thru the November election. Any help would be appreciated. Sorry to bug you -- if there is someone else I can bug, please let me know. Thanks! -- Sholom 12:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Sholom. As of the moment, we have 5 cases that need Advocates and they are trickling in one by one as they finish their current cases and other business. Since you have been waiting so long, allow me to take on your case, myself. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks -- I appreciate it, I know you must be busy. How do we start? (And, also, I'd like to call Lucky Adrastus and John Broughton as good-faith witnesses if that's what you need. Basically, here's the summary as I see it. There is a competitive race for Congress -- pitting Thelma Drake and Phillip Kellam in Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006. There had already been an edit war in the Drake article between "Lucky" (above) and User talk:70.160.180.8 regarding the campaign. Later, stuff I entered also became the subject of a dispute. I asked Broughton for help, since I know he is involved in following political campaigns. He suggested to me that the campaign content of the Drake article ought to go into a separate election article, and so I created Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006. I then moved all but a few sentences of the campaign content from the Drake and Kellam articles (the latter of which I also initially wrote) to Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006 so as to keep the "edit war" here confined to one article. As you can see, if you look at the Thelma Drake article, the only sentences I left in were mention of two polls that indicated the race was close. I (and Broughton and Lucky) all feel that these completely neutral statements belong in the candidates' articles so as to pique the interest of the reader, and provide context, so that the reader can decide whether or not to click/read the Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006 article.
The problem is that User talk:70.160.180.8 is insistent upon removing all mention of the polls in the candidates' articles, as well as other neutral material in the election article. User talk:70.160.180.8 will not discuss the issue, preferring to leave remarks on the "Edit summary". If you look at the history of each of the three articles mentioned (Thelma Drake, Phillip Kellam, and Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006) you will see that, among other things, he's violated the 3RR rule, he's been offered mediation, he's been warned about vandalism, he insists that our edits are POV and vandalism, and so forth. Further, we have strong reason to believe that he edits from multiple IP's -- one during work hours and from User talk:70.160.180.8 at home. Additionally, if you look at the history of edits of 70.160.180.8, you can see that just about every edit he's made ever relates to the three articles mentioned. So: I'm not sure if this classifies as an "edit war" or "vandalism" or "sock puppetry" or what. As you are deciding, I strongly urge you to look at: (a) User talk:70.160.180.8 for comments we have left; (b) the history of edits of the three articles; and (c) Talk:Thelma Drake where we've tried to reason with him. Thanks! -- Sholom 13:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, the first step for me is to read over everything you've provided me in detail, then do a bit of investigative work of my own to ascess what is going on. In the meantime, take a good read through the Association of Members' Advocates pages to understand how the Advocacy process works. :-) My plan is to try and contact the anonynmous IP and see if we can all work towards a compromise by following each of the steps in Wikipedia's Policy on Resolving Disputes. If that doesn't work, I'll help you articulate your complaints and show you how to take further steps towards resolving this under policy, and in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to go so far) through formal Mediation and Arbitration. Sound good to you? :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks. As far as the steps in WP:DR: you'll see that we did offer to him mediation (which he refused); I discussed with two others. I didn't conduct a survey (since it seemed like an article not frequented very much by anybody else). (Somewhere along the way, he got banned for 24 hours for 3RR). I skipped mediation (since he previously refused), and then went to requesting an advocate. Which is where you come in ;). Still, I'm happy to get guidance on the process here. -- Sholom 14:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm another one of the users involved in this, checking in on this page. Sholom's summary is accurate and complete, so I have little to add. I was involved in a revert war with the anonymous user in June, which ended with me re-writing, but including, pretty much all of the stuff he wanted to include. It's the material that now belongs on the campaign page. Note that the only edit he's ever made outside of this closed universe of Thelma Drake and her campaign is an early edit to George Allen (politician) in which he systematically removed anything negative about Allen. That's actually how I learned about the Drake stuff -- I was reading the Allen page and got curious what else the anonymous user had vandalized/blanked. Lucky Adrastus 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Latest update -- two days later: the user is becoming more belligerant, and his edits are now crossing into vandalism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_2nd_congressional_district_election%2C_2006&diff=67145778&oldid=67032360 Please also Special:Contributions/70.160.180.8 -- this has been going on for months already. -- Sholom 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a few moments before you posted here, I hit his talk page with a lengthy query and outline of policies. :-) Depending on how he responds to this will determine the course of action that we can take. Unfortunately, each step needs to be taken in turn instead of all at once. (addendum: Although God knows that all at once is what's most appealing in situations like these.) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He has not responded to my inquiry, and has since (yesterday, I notice) participated in more vandalism. At this rate, we may have to simply request for a semi-protection to block out anonymous IPs and coax the vandal to create an account. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for attempting. My experience in the past is that sprotect is generally limited to only 24 or 48 hours, and, as this guy's been at it for months, I'm not sure how much this will help. Nevertheless, tell me what to do, and I'll do it. -- Sholom 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I would completely prefer if he were to respond to my questions so that we can resolve this amicably, the only way to deal with this that I can see is to put the proper vandalism warning templates on his talk page, and if he continues to vandalize without discussing things, then post his IP on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Normally, this kind of behavior would be a content dispute, but unwillingness to discuss with third parties may make the intervention board a good place to try. If at some point he does try and discuss things, we can try and reason on a case by case basis. Sounds good? :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, you've seen that people have been leaving comments on User talk:70.160.180.8 since May. And that he has been warned a few times. So, which template (test3?, test4?) should be put on? And who should post it? Thanks. -- Sholom 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (Addendum: I asked somebody else about this, and they said: "In that case, it is still a 3RR violation. WP:3RR states that In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. This line addresses "letter vs. spirit" of the law issues. Be clear when applying to an admin that this is the part of 3RR you are referring to when listing the violation....") So -- tell me which template to stick on, and who should do it. Thanks! -- Sholom 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK -- he's ignored the warnings. Now what do we do? -- Sholom 03:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is most unfortunate as now we're going to have to bring this to Administrator attention. Place the {{subst:test4a}} on his page, and file a request under Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. I'm honestly not sure what else to do. If this were a registered account, it would be much easier to deal with as we could step through WP:DR properly; however, this has truly gotten out of hand. The anonymous user will not discuss or reason at all. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Also according to the rules, we may need to wait for one more act of vandalism, however an Administrator who simply looks over the article history should have no problem with it. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 18:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a recent flurry of activity in which two of the anonyous users sockpuppet IP's were blocked by admins. Before that, the user had been AWOL for some time. Did this have anything to do with what's been discussed here? Thanks! Lucky Adrastus 08:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diabolos (talk|contribs)

This section is for the AMA case concerning Diabolos.

I can't think of the date it started on, but a user with an server number editted the Doc Hammer article removing a comment on the article that the pigmentation defect causing Hammer's hair to cause in grow in two colors was "snazzy." Hazelfo then proceeded to revert it because "it has to stay." The comment was deleted again and this was repeated to the point that the Three Revert Rule was violated on this article repeatedly by Hazelfo. Elijya then stated on the talk page that it read like a MySpace page and needed to be taken care of. I did so, twice, and had my attempts reverted by Hazelfo. I then attempted to explain it to Hazelfo on the talk page, only to be snapped at. I then called in ILike2BeAnonymous to look at the page so that I could have another users opinion on the article. He stated that "It read like a fan zine." I edited it again, only to be edited by Hazelfo who insisted that "Wikipedia must be fun." That is the last I have touched the article and since then, Hazelfo has vandalized my Userpage. Also, personal attacks have been made against me on the talk page. -Diabolos 22:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it first looks like Hazelflo needs to be talked to. I'll see if I can get some questions I have about their actions and motivations answered as well as discuss WP:3RR and WP:ATTACK with them. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me) 00:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
HazelFO. HazelFO. HazelFO. --Hazelfo 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It is actually Hazelfo rather than Hazelflo. I think I did type it as that on the AMA Request page so I've made that mistake too. -Diabolos 23:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, fine, you can call me "Sneeve" if you want to make up for it, I won't be offended. :-) I apologize for my "read-o", I should have looked over your username more carefully. Since you have happened upon my Advocacy Requests page, how about continue our discussion here? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me) 02:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Hazelfo:

Hello, Hazelflo, I'm Steve Caruso and I am acting as Diabolos' Advocate. Diabolos has requested my assistance to articulate her concerns about the recent bit of friction that has come up over the Doc Hammer article. Seeing what I've looked up in the article's history, what you've placed on your userpage, as well as what she has been discussing with me, I would like to inquire into the motivations behind your actions as I personally am having difficulty understanding the choices you've made. Most editors here at Wikipedia would consider such acts as personal attacks, incivility, edit warring and vandalism, things that strain against the core principles of the encyclopedia. As such, I would truly appreciate it if you could explain to me "your side" of the situation so that I can better understand everything that is going on. Thanks! אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me) 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It's simple. I don't consider what I have done as any of those things. I think Diabolos was just annoyed because Doc Hammer's page didn't follow her "rules" of what a Wikipedia page should look like. (I.E., no trivia section, no personality, no touch of fun.) Then she got her friends to agree with her and try again and again to delete sections I've worked very hard on (and I'm the only person who has.) Then she blames me for vandalizing her userpage, which I have never done. And I really do not consider what I have written in her user talk page as a "personal attack," mostly because it was an observational statement about how she got so stressed out over a page she never cared about until there was something for her to complain about. And my name is HAZELFO. --Hazelfo 00:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for inadvertently messing up your name. I've made a copy of our current thread of discussion over at User:The_Thadman/Advocacy_Requests#Diabolos_.28talk.7Ccontribs.29 (which I see that you've come across). I'd appreciate it if we could continue this there. :-) Peace, אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me) 02:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Now to continue this thread of our converation: Looking over your edits, more than one editor has flagged your talk page over disregard to what Wikipedia is not. Do you believe that the "texture" of content that you seem to be repeatedly adding to this project is becomming of an encyclopedia? Would you expect to find something similar if you were to crack open a random volume of 'Britanica? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me) 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Would you please explain your statement?-Diabolos 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Me? Sure. See, Wikipedia is on the internet. Therefore, it's going to be filled with things that the internet is interested in. You'd never find an article about Doc Hammer in the Encyclopedia Britannica, so it's completely irrelevent to hold it up to that kind of standard. Pages like this are going to be made by fans, just like you'd expect an article about physics to be written by some guy with a PhD in physics, because he is a fan of physics. Fans have the most information about their chosen subject. Doc Hammer's article, being an article you wouldn't really find outside of the internet and being written by fans of his work, is going to have a fannish flair. That's just expected. He's also a comedy writer, and that's going to be reflected in his article. Making it bland and boring, and putting only information you'd glean from just watching The Venture Bros., you'd might as well not have the article at all. It's small details that make it worthwhile, which is what you were trying to erase and I was trying to protect. --Hazelfo 04:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually meant Steve. But now this situation is starting to make sense. -Diabolos 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but Wikipedia is not a volume of Britannica. If it is, it's the single largest section completely devoted to the internet. --Hazelfo 02:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct in stating that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and has biases towards what those who have access to the internet are interested in; however, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and as such, there are certain things that do not have a home here (such as FAQs, ) articles should be written in an encyclopedic manner. If you wish to argue that the encyclopedic manner is "boring" then please Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. All of the editors involved can come together and find a consensus as to how to include the trivia... but the trivia and other material needs to follow the standards of Wikipedia as well as be properly sourced in order to be included. Do you see where I'm coming from? :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me) 13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but during this whole thing Diabolos just kept editing and would only state that the article was not up to snuff or something generalizing like that. There was no compromising until she left and the Trivia page was restored. Now the trivia section is, apparently, what she had in mind. Even though she never told us that. --Hazelfo 17:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I am slowly discovering that I really am terrible at talking to people. What I meant was that we needed to merge certain things (Like, we could have put all of Hammer's medical afflictions together rather then listing them seperately as seen on the trivia section now). We have merged certain things from the former trivia section into the article, like his paintings being exhibited at Arcadia. Certain things have been added to like films he's appeared in and his numerous tattoos. I wasn't pleased that originally, the trivia was as long as the non-trivia section of the article. -Diabolos 18:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So we're resolved now? --Hazelfo 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Steve, what do you have to say? I think that this was moreso a problem of miscommunication. -Diabolos 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think that that it was simply a communication glitch and you both can work together now under the same banner, then I'd say you're good to go. :-) If anything else comes up or you feel you need a third party to look over things, just hit me on my talk page and I'm at your service (either of you). :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me) 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neurofunk

Dispute on Neurofunk article, which I'm advocating, has now reached a fever pitch, and I'm afraid I simply can't settle it without some kind of protection. User:Bakemono and User:Kridian are in a revert war, one side of which amounts to deleting the entire article and redirecting (without consensus). Could I get page protection, or could you please direct me to where I might find protection? Thanks, WormwoodJagger 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DPeterson (talk • contribs)

User:FCYTravis began an edit war on Advocates for Children in Therapy and then had the page protected under his version, despite other editors wishing the previous version. He then will not discuss the issues and does not seem willing to consider other points of view. I set up a poll and despite it not being in his favor, he continue to not accept the consensus. I requested mediation and he refused to participate in that. I also think he abused his admin priv by editing the page despite it being protected. (I am not sure how to report this if that is the case). He states that the section he removed is not verifiable and has not citations. on the talk page many have provided citations and websites to support the statement that neither the American Medican Associaiton, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, NASW, or APSAC use ACT's information despite ACT's efforts to do so. He is REQUIRING that I find evidence that each group states, "We do not recognize the ACT." But that is not my point...only that ACT is an advocacy group and tries to influence those orgs and has not been successful. The talk page for Advocates for Children in Therapy and the section above have the dialogue on these points. DPetersontalk 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This looks like it may be a bit of a tricky issue under citing sources as this is far within the "gray area" of WP:V. Some believe that citing a lack of support is synthesizing new ideas, where on the other hand, many organizations who do not take a particular group seriously will not even mention them or ignore their intentions, as publishing material on it gives them a certain level of creedence. It may be profitable to mention that they have, on all current records, never been endorsed by any of those organizations (and provide a link to a place to access them), which would not (at least in my opinion) be WP:OR and to remove it would require a source where they do.
As for administrator powers, I need to investigate the issue further. If you could pad out the history and give me some diff links to some of the larger moves that have been made on this page, I'll look more closely into policy to see what else can be done. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Let's see if I can be coherent, consistent, and concise. User:FCYTravis began editing Advocates for Children in Therapy on September 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=73240206. He removed a large section of "Acceptance by Mental Health Profession" and requested a citation ([citation needed]). I added back the material deleted because I felt that the links to the professional group's websites showed that those professional groups did not cite or mention ACT. I put notes on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=73513081) in the section, Recognition by Medical Groups). On Sept 3 he then moved to deleting the See also section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=73521731. Several people commented on the talk page about this and he continued to revert and edit without comment. He then must have put in a request for page protection and the page was protected at his stage of editing (without the See also section and the Acceptance by MH Profession section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture). A poll was begun on Sept 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DPeterson) and over the next few days a number of people chimed in that the See also section should be added back and so should the deleted section about Acceptance by the MH profession. He refused to accept the poll.

I proposed mediation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy) and he refused to particpate in that.

He then used his admin priv on Sept 6 to add back the See also section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=74048078) despite the page protection. I believe he has abused his admin priv by doing this (even though every wants that) and may have abused his influence to get the page protected so quickly and for the protection to not be ended despite a clear consensus on this and the Acceptance by MH profession section. He is a party of a dispute and so should not use his admin priv. This is really a process and "appearance" issue.

The MH profession section read: Advocates for Children in Therapy is not recognized nor accepted by the American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/), American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/), American Psychiatric Association (http://www.psych.org/), National Association of Social Workers (http://www.socialworkers.org/), or any other large professional organizations. Those large, well-respected professional organizations do seek input from various groups, but not from Advoctes for Children in Therapy. As such ACT is not part of the mainstream mental health professional community and its advice is not sought by these groups, although ACT does attempt to influence such groups; "ACT works to mobilize parents, professionals, private and governmental regulators, prosecutors, juries, and legislators" [1]

I think the links and reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=73512932) provide ample support for the statment that ACT is not used by these groups and so is not part of the main stream MH profession. However, if there is a better way to state that, I am open to that. The point is that ACT does try to influence those groups and has not been able to do so, therefore it is not mainstream.

As an admin I expect him to act in accord with Wikipedia principles and be a model. His refusal to participate in mediation or accept the results of a poll are not fitting of an administrator.

Your comments and suggestions will be appreciated...and I expect that I will follow your recommendations and advice as an outside observer. Thanks for taking the time here. DPetersontalk 00:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and there has also been no reponse to requests to end page protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Clinks.7Chistory.7Clogs.29 Thanks DPetersontalk 00:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New related issues

  1. FCYTravis made a comment (not sure it belonged there) in the Unprotect request for this article. Immediately after his comment a bot moved the request to fulfilled and then deleted it! But no action had been taken by an admiinstrator...except for the admin FCYTravis, who commented. (see version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=74451100) DPetersontalk 11:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

for current status see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Clinks.7Chistory.7Clogs.29

  1. One other point: He "threatened" to protect the Attachment therapy page. Again, I consider this an abuse of admin priv since he is a party to that dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attachment_Therapy&oldid=73601057

What do you suggest? DPetersontalk 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. I note that on the request to end page protection he is now name calling "meat puppet" toward someone with a view he does not like. I don't think this is behavior becoming of an administrator. At this point I think I would like to make a formal complaint regarding his behavior. How would I do that? As he suggested, do I fill out a request for formal arbitration? regards. DPetersontalk 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly advise against going through ArbCom with it. I'm certain that the case would be rejected at this point (as not every venue has been tried, at least as I have seen), and that the scuffle that can be resolved amicably. However if things -do- continue after attempts to fix this issue, there is a place that you can bring this to the attention of other Admins on the Administrator Notice Board's "Incidents" subpage: WP:AN/I. In the meantime, FCYTravis has posted a brief compromise of sorts over on my talk page, which I think could use some expansion as well as your input. If things stop dead in the water, or further incivility persists, then we should take a next step in WP:DR; not before. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. I will look at his suggestion and post a comment. I will be out of contact till Monday...maybe things will settle down by then. DPetersontalk 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I commented to FYCTravis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Thadman) that, On this point I think I agree with you, but let me seek some clarification, ok? The statement "Act is not part of the mainstream..." is a conclusion. I think we both would agree with that, yes? Are you saying that articles must never have conclusions, unless there is a source cited? If that is Wikipedia policy, then so be it and I would then certainly agree that such a statement should not be in the article.

Is he correct that articles must never state conclusions? If you'd take a look at the page Advocates for Children in Therapy I did make an addition with citations...have I oversteped or is my addition and citation consistent with Wikipedia policy? Thanks. DPetersontalk 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He later states, :That is correct. We cannot come to any conclusions without citing a source for that conclusion - and even then, we must clearly state that it is an opinion of ABC, and then present any relevant and significant opposing opinions from XYZ" is that really true? If so, I think that will end most of our dispute...if it is not true, then there will continue to remain areas of continued conflict. Your observations, comments, and suggestions now would be most appreciated by me. Thanks DPetersontalk 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Umberg Biography

As Chief of Staff to California State Assemblyman Tom Umberg, I would like to file a formal complaint that someone keeps modifying the Assemblyman's biography on your Web Site.

This is to inform you that the information added to Mr. Umberg's biography is false, defamatory and negative. In particular the paragraph which begins with "Umberg had an extramarital affair" has false, defamatory, and negative information contained with it. The citations that the author utilizes ignores corrections later made in the Orange County Register newspaper. An "alternative" newspaper, well known for its fast and lose journalism, is also used as a citation.

You should also be aware that this false, defamatory, and negative information has caused, and is causing harm, to Mr. Umberg in his profession both within the United States and United Kingdom where Mr. Umberg's law firm maintains offices and clients. Your continuing publication of this false and defamatory information, after having been formally notified, is both willful and malicious.

Please edit this paragraph and information out of Mr. Umberg's biography. Thank you for your assistance with this request.

Sincerely,

George Urch Chief of Staff Assemblyman Tom Umberg (714) 939-8469 Email - George.Urch@asm.ca.gov

Mr. Urch,
Firstoff, I apologize for the troubles that you are having. I field many problems with content disputes on a weekly basis here on Wikipedia and I am more than familiar with how frustrating they can be. In the meantime before this issue can be appropriately resolved I must implore you to exercise patience as I can also understand, given your office as Chief of Staff for a prominent Assemblyman, how difficult your position may be. So, please, once again this can be worked through in time.
Secondly, I must bring to your attention that the Association of Members' Advocates is a volunteer group within Wikipedia's vast user community. We do not have a legal relationship to Wikipedia, nor are we a formal or legal part of the Wikimedia foundation. We have no harder sway in what gets published on Wikipedia over anyone else, other than that we take it upon ourselves to help out fellow editors (of identical status) work through the Dispute Resolution Process.
We're not lawyers, we're not a cabal, nor do we strive to be unaccomodating: We're regular average joes with extra time on our hands to help out make this Encyclopedia better. Wikipedia is not "our site" in the way that you imply, so we cannot be "formally notified" about it (since we serve no formal capacity) and therefore can not in any way be "willful" or "malicious" on our part of publishing anything about Mr. Umburg in his article as none of us have contributed to it. :-)
As a result of that, it is not only inappropriate for you to post such a request to me (albeit understandable why you did, looking for help), but it also tells me that you are very unfamiliar with "how things work" within this medium that is Wikipedia: "The Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit." As a first step, I strongly encourage you read over Wikipedia Policy to get a handle on the rules and guidelines. Register yourself a username so that you can contribue to the community more effectively, and correct these mistakes in the spirit of the rules.
If in the end you have identified a genuine dispute in editing content and you need further help articulating your problems within Wikipedia Policy I will be more than glad to assist in my capacity as an Advocate (which you can read more about on our FAQ page and our Guide to Advocacy), but I literally cannot do anything more than you can on this matter other than lend my experience and show you the ropes.
Sincerely looking forward,
Steve Caruso
Coordinator, Association of Members' Advocates

[edit] bio deletion....case you just took

Steve, as i am a bit of a "rookie" when it comes to wiki i don't really know where i will find any comments/questions you may have of me about my request for assistance.

i can see from my talk pages that you "took the case" per my bio and deletion.

would you care to email me directly or do we talk somehow on those talk pages? that is, i don't know where/if i will find your comments about the case.

please let me know how this works, okay? thanks very much for your time, busy man :~)

peace antoinette nora claypoole email watersongs@gmail.com

[edit] Need advocacy to advise me

I would like someone to advise me in a dispute with Hkelkar, who continue to target my edits and targets me because of his own personal political biases and his agendas. Originally admin Ben W Bell was involved to mediate, but seems to be a little biased toward User:Hkelkar as he has been much harsher on me or does not respond to my requests. Thank you--Kathanar 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and advocate. I always welcome non-partisan eyes to view articles and point out issues.That is how wikipedia is supposed to work. I request you, however, to remember that User:Ben W Bell is widely regarded as objective and has mediated several discussions to the satisfaction of the majority of the parties involved. Ask me, User:Nidhishsinghal, User:Bakasuprman and User:Goethean regarding Kancha Ilaiah and Ben's excellent mediation there (he was disappointed that he couldn;t satisfy everybody, but the majority of the editors involved were very happy with his evaluation and we felt that he was too self-critical). Plus, this Kathanar chap (the poster above) has engaged in brutal personal attacks against users like myself (see User:Ben W Bell's talk page for a sampling of his attacks, plus, see his contribs history also). He has an extremist minority view of the topics involved and has tried to push his POV against several users (see his contribs history to see his often rather demented edits).Hkelkar 21:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User%7EThe_Thadman_Advocacy_Requests_Archive_8f3b.html"