Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/miked789

< Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates | Requests

Case Filed On: 17:48, 14 March 2007 (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:

Content Dispute: I apologize for the second posting, the previous complaint specified WikiMark and should have read "WikiMart".

The page in question reads like a fan club press release, or a press release by the subjects employee. I have attempted to bring some balance to it. The person in question, Premier of British Columbia has been one of the most polarizing persons in BC for four decades. Yet NONE of that comes across. In the beginning I did not understand the process, the first edits by others of my work I understand. Since then I have toned it down and added plenty of references, including Hansard, the official record of the British Columbia legislation. WikiMark says his reason for removing every single edit of mine is partisian. But in fact, his edit is highly partisian. I cannont help but feel that he is a supporter of the subject and it is coloring his judgement at the least.

I admit, I am not a supporter, in fact I hate the man like no other, mostly because he lied, and lied and lied. And I have the records to prove it. With plenty of references. Still, I toned it down, and provided factual content.

The content is negative, but factual and each is on the record. Such as, he promised not to sell BC Rail. Then he did. That is on the record. Why is that partisian? Because it is negative? Well, so far there is only a positive glowing review, making it sound like almost everyone in BC loves the man, except for a couple.

This section is being deliberatly cleaned by his supporters. I can't help but see it any other way. WikiMart says I am partisan, I say he is. JGGardiner says "not exactly neutral and is sourced from an advocacy group from a labour union" I have made it as neutral as possible, and still carry the facts. Most of the references that are negative are from labour groups, or advocacy groups of same. Most businesses don't bother to print negative things about the most powerfull man in BC. They know who butters their bread. But that does not mean that the labour unions are not factual in their content, anymore than a newspaper can be 'factual'. They are biased as well. The facts are not in dispute. They happened. For instance, Gordon Campbell gave an interview in which he said he would not reopen contracts or contract out workers. Then he did. The text of the interview was on a site referenced. Yet that site was not sufficient for No Guru

In one section of Gordon Campbell, it goes on to say how he raised wages for nurses and doctors (under Health Care) I inserted that he cut healthcare workers by fifteen percent, mostly Hospital employees' Union members. How is that partisian? If you can say he gave raises to some, why can't I say he cut others wages?

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:

Under the circumstances, I don't know what I can do, since the other editors seem to be highly partisian and focused on keeping any negative aspect of his office out of Wikipedia.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer:

I honestly don't know what I can expect.

Summary:

edit

miked789 (talk · contribs) believes that the Gordon Campbell article would benefit from more information from critics of Mr. Campbell and has been attempting to insert such information into the article. Users WikiMart (talk · contribs), JGGardiner (talk · contribs), and No Guru (talk · contribs) believe that mike789's edits are not reliably sourced and/or are not encyclopedic. Propose beginning by seeing if we can get agreement among the parties regarding criticism of Gordon Campbell that the parties can agree is well-sourced and appropriate for the article. --Shirahadasha 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

edit
  • Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy permits and indeed encourages including critical information in articles. However, this information needs to be reliably sourced, and Wikipedia is particularly concerned about reliable sourcing when biographies of living persons are involved. There seems to be concern both about the critical tone of content and the sources provided. It might be useful both to clarify the appropriateness and encyclopedicness of including critical content in the Gordon Campbell article. It might also be useful to address issues of tone, and discuss and perhaps improve the sourcing. I am hoping we might be able to discuss the issue with the other editors involved and reach agreement under which key points of Gordon Campbell's critics, appropriately toned and sourced, can be included in the article. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copied this earlier comment from User talk:miked789 --Shirahadasha 06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello. I'm a relatively new AMA member looking at your case and interested in the possibility of taking it. I've taken the liberty of looking at some of your edits and have a couple of questions. I noticed that your last few edits on the Gordon Campbell article and your edits used sources such as http://www.deceivebc.ca and http://policyalternatives.ca. I understand that you're having a dispute with editors who are claiming that the sources you are using are partisan. Wikipedia's reliable sources policy outlines the types of sources Wikipedia uses; the list tends to favor works by figures like academics and journalists. I understand that this tends to favor mainstream media and academic-type sources which are not always open to alternative views. However, I was wondering if some of the information you are trying to add to the article might be covered by mainstream media or similar sources. If you could find coverage in more standard media, this would likely put you on much more solid ground in an edit dispute and the opposition to your edits might be softened. I'd also encourage you to open up a dialogue on the article's discussion page, Talk:Gordon Campbell. Perhaps you might be able to reach agreement on the sort of sources that would be usable. Best,--Shirahadasha 02:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shirahadasha

Thank you for your interest in this.

To be quite honest, I don't know if I am in the right or not. I am trying to work towards unbiased, non-partisan edits, and someone has been kind enough to help with the editing towards that end.

I appreciate you getting back to me, I didn't expect a reply for several weeks and I expected this to go on for a while before someone stepped up.


So, even though I don't know you or how you would rule (or whatever), please let me know what you think, and I will either drop it, or go forward.


In other words, if you believe that I have some merit in my argument that my edits are being deleted WITH cause, let me know and I will continue working towards making them acceptable.


I don't know if you can also look at my accusation that the page looks like a press release by the premiers office. I stand by that, I think every negative article has been watered down, I believe strongly that this page is without balance.


As I have stated, this premier (a current sitting premier, holding the most powerfull position in British Columbia, Canada) is (was) the most divisive, polarizing premier in the last four decades. The province was on the brink of a complete shutdown, close to riots on picket lines.


His government cut all funding to womens shelters, broke promise after promise. Before he was elected he promised to restore funding to the Ministry of Familys and children. When in opposition he hammered the then current government on their mishandling of the ministry, and part of their demise had to do with childrens deaths under their care.


Under his office, the ministry faced more cuts, he removed the 'childrens ombudsman', then had several deaths of children under his watch. The list goes on and on.


Does that mean I want every single critical item that can be attributed to him? No. Not in the least. But as I see the article, it does almost nothing to show that side of his reign. It appears to me that the page is almost glowing in praise, showing all his 'accomplishments' with almost none of the strife on how he got there.


It talks about how the most jobs ever where created during his time in office. Most economists say that the government in power has nothing to do with job creation, esp in a province like ours where we sell mostly a resource based business. Mining, forestry. But in any case, it says nothing about how we got to that point. But does it really belong?


I don't want an "I hate Campbell" page, but I would like a page that reflects something closer to the reality.


BTW, I looked at other premiers for BC, and their pages are much smaller, and really shows only a bare bio. I suggested that perhaps, for balance, the page be stripped down to the bare biography, and everything else be referenced in the appropriate pages. I also pointed out in the discussion page for Gordon Campbell that there are many non-referenced parts. I covered a few. None of them, almost every one positive, were removed.


But if I am wrong, let me know. I'll drop it.

If I am right, please give me your suggestion.

Again, thank you for your interest in this.

I appreciate it.

Miked789 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)miked789[reply]

  • Copied from User talk:miked789 --Shirahadasha 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi! Got your message. Just wanted to let you know that I'm only an advocate, not a mediator or arbitrator, so I can't "rule" on anything. All I can do at this point is try discuss the matter with the other editors involved and see if we can find away to bring more of your point of view into the article in a way that hopefully everyone will agree is appropriate and within Wikipedia policies. Hopefully we can resolve the issue this way. I expect to start on this later this weekend. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I believe this to be an accurate summary.

Thank you

BTW, I think one of the issues will be/is the "Guardian" an appropriate source material(for the statements Campbell made pre-election)? I suggest it is since this is where the interview with the premier Gordon Campbell was published, it is the newsletter of the Hospital Employees' Union. While it may not be a mainline source, it was the original source, published under the byline of the interviewer. That is if I am reading the policy correctly. Campbell never stated he never gave that interview or suggested that it was innacurate.

Miked789 17:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Miked789[reply]

    • == Preventing Edit War ==
    • Hello. I'm a member of the Association of Members' Advocates who's been assigned to this topic on behalf of User:Miked789, in response to this request. Mike789 has asked for assistance in resolving this dispute. As an advocate I have no power at all, I can only provide assistance to the party requesting it. My hope is that we can identify criticism of Gordon Camplbell that the parties can agree is reliably sourced. It might be useful to begin by seeing if we can identify statements by critics of Mr. Campbell published in mainstream media etc. I ask all parties involved to remember our civility policy, to discuss the article here rather than on each other's user pages, and to refrain from discussing any matters except the article. I would also suggest that we identify and discuss criticism on this talk page first before putting it in the article, and that we avoid back-and-forth editing that could confuse readers. Wikipedia has a three revert rule designed to prevent this sort of back-and-forth. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:32, 18 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: closed


Advocate Status:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/March_2007/miked789&oldid=1138375753"