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

Case Filed On: 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

• Russeasby (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• Russeasby (talk · contribs)
• Badmonkey (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• Anchor (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: Biased company adding their data to article, unencylopedic. Data may not even be allowable without origonators permission. Edit war among two different anchor manufactuers neither which should be contributing biased views to the article.

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: Spoke to both (one outside wikipedia as he as been blocked), neither is right, one made modifications to the others company product which were inappropriate (Alain POIRAID), the other Badmonkey insists on adding company modified chart and data. Neither of their edits should be included.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: Neither biased editor should contribute any information to the article which is more then general anchor information, they are both well respected anchor experts but both have bias reguarding their product. Specificly badmonkey should not be allowed to include his chart in the article and Alain POIROID should not be allowed to modify the section on Ronca anchors.

Summary:

See above, conflict of interest as the two parties are both designers of anchors (I own neither anchor and hope to see this article remain unbaised twards either of their products).

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: NEW

Advocate Status:

• None assigned.