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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Filed On: 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

  • Lots, but I'm not really interested in fighting with them, just resolving process issues.

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

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

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: Talk page discussion, raised the issues at WP:RFPP, and filed RfCs. Update: Also took it to WP:AN, WP:VPP, and finally WP:MEDCAB. 22:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: Just some advice; not looking for an advocate or mediator per se.

Summary:[edit]

I and a number of other editors are concerned about and in opposition to some page full-protections, and the manner in which they are being handled, that do not appear to be justifiable under WP:PROT. I have detailed the issues I care most about (there are additional ones that relate to WP:OWN and corewarring that I don't want to get into here), as three RfC's at WP:RFC/POLICIES. They begin with "Unprotection of WP:RS", "{{Disputedpolicy}} on WP:ATT", and "Protection of WP:ATT without {{Protected}} tag". The advice I'm seeking is whether this is a waste of time; I'm told that RFC/Policies is mostly used to discuss new guideline proposals and the like that it isn't paid much attention to and thus unlikely to generate much response. Should I go to mediation? Just live with the fact that a bunch of us think several things are being done wrong? WP:RFPP doesn't seem to want to get involved much, presumably because the parties causing the problems are other admins. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Update: I took it to WP:MEDCAB but two parties (punitively in my view, after they engaged in a WP:NPA against me because I, properly, sought mediation) rejected the mediation request, rendering it moot. 22:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:[edit]

Hi SMcCandlish, at the moment all four pages (WP:A, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V) are protected, have a protection tag and still have full status (RS is a guideline, the others policy). So has this issue been resolved? Addhoc 21:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't been addressed at all. There's blatantly no consensus for the full-protections, and the protections are being used to POV prevent the application of the Disputedtag (a.k.a. Disputedpolicy) template, and to prevent the application of merge tags at WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR that appear to be required by WP:MERGE, and to prevent the undoing of a revert against unanimous consensus at WP:RS just before the protections went into place. It's really blowing my mind that no one seems to understand what is happening here, and that all of the protections with the exception of the one at WP:ATT (which page has been subject to editwarring) are against WP:PROT. I really don't know what to do at this stage. I've been trying to follow WP:DISPUTE in good faith, but am being attacked as "disruptive" for it. Oh, and thanks for getting back to me about this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, very sorry for not understanding. Could you explain what process you believe is required, in addition to the Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. Addhoc 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clearer, I don't see anything wrong at all about the poll or the related /Community discussion page. The issue is that a mini-bloc of 2 editors (1 admin and a non-admin) have insisted without consensus on imposing a full-protection on all four policypages, and this is causing problems. Despite the fact that more people oppose these protections than support them, no one will do anything about it. It's preventing the application of the proper merge tags and other templates and the restoring of material to RS that was deleted without consensus. It is also preventing editing of the content of the policies, which is the declared rationale, but enough editors are involved that editwarring won't be tolerated anyway. For every crank edit that might be made, probably 20 people would rush to revert it. Does that make any more sense? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: NEW


Advocate Status:

  • None assigned.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/March_2007/SMcCandlish&oldid=1138375679"