Wikipedia

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Dachannien

< Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance‎ | Requests

Case Filed On: 20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

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: Dispute regarding prior closed AfD.

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: Discussion with other editor who is reverting the outcome of the AfD. Talk page and AfD vote are cited in the pertinent pages section.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: Honestly, I'm not certain where to go from here to resolve this matter. I want to be fair about things and follow the proper Wikipedia policy. I'm hoping for guidance from an advocate concerning the proper steps to follow to settle this matter for good.

Summary: edit

The article Yaohushua has had a colorful past, from its creation in 2001 to the removal and redirection of its content to other places due to nonverifiability. It had been redirected to Jesus since 2004 as an alternative form of "Yeshua", when a user removed the redirection and replaced it with this edit.

Since the content of that edit was not verifiable, I reverted it, and the editor reverted my reversion. At that point, I nominated the article for deletion due to unverifiability (it had been around since 2001 without ever containing verifiable information, and in its best form, was a redirection elsewhere; it had no Google hits of discernable notability, either).

The AfD culminated in a consensus (one that appeared not to involve the other editor in this dispute) over the course of 7 days to redirect the article to Sacred Name Movement. Since then, the user User:Avodah has (under that account as well as an anonymous IP) repeatedly undone the redirection that was agreed upon by the AfD.

I have made an effort to discuss the matter with Avodah, but his (or her) comments on the talk page have been demonstrative of a lack of understanding of the verifiability criterion, as well as rather confusing.

My concern is that, since Avodah had not participated in the AfD, he may feel that his opinion was not taken into account. I believe that he considers his edits to be in good faith even though those edits don't meet verifiability criteria and have been reverted numerous times after the AfD consensus was reached.

In addition, nowhere have I been able to find out whether an AfD is considered binding or not. For example, I would agree that a bold edit that resolved the verifiability issue with this article would be a good thing, even if it did fly in the face of a past AfD. While the edits Avodah has been making don't solve the verifiability issue, the ability of people to fix previously deleted articles makes it difficult for me to simply request protection for the article in its redirected form, or to ask for some disciplinary action to be taken in the matter.

I want to ensure that my actions in this matter are done with respect for others and according to the proper procedure, and that's why I'm asking for the advice of an advocate. Thanks! --DachannienTalkContrib 20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: edit

Note- I'd like to make a note that I've protected the redirect and left messages on the redirect talk page, and the talk page of the disruptive (in my opinion, at best misguided) user. Martinp23 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I hereby rescind my request for assistance. --DachannienTalkContrib 08:31, 28 December 2006 (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: closed


Advocate Status:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/December_2006/Dachannien&oldid=1137459332"