Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/0-0-0-Destruct-0

Wikipedian filing request:

• 0-0-0-Destruct-0 (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• ChrisGriswold (talk · contribs)
• Paschmitts (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• Taylor Allderdice High School (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: content dispute, incivility

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: discussions on the article's talk page.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: whether others' efforts to delete my edits are appropriate in this case or not.

Summary:

I added a carefully documented section entitled "Drug Culture of the 1970's" to a stub for a high school. The main source is the high school newspaper. Other editors delete my section on two counts. 1) They claim it receives undue weight. I claim that as an addition to a stub, of course it's large relative to the whole, but it's of modest length, and will fit well in a more filled out article, so the claim of undue weight is not valid. 2) They declare my source invalid without reviewing my source, even though it's readily available online. I claim that, despite being a school newspaper, this paper maintains a high enough standard with school administration oversight that it can constitute a legitmate basis for what I wrote. But even if the source were as poor as the other editors prejudge, my plainly stated intention is to document that "During the 70s, drug culture and humor played a prominent and benign role in school life." So the very fact that the administration allowed the paper to publish the kind of content I cite is itself evidence of that admnistration's benign attitude toward the students' drug culture.

Paschmitts has reverted my edits without justification. More seriously ChrisGriswold has evinced incivility and a lack of due consideration, and reverts my edits without justification. I would like to know if the other editors' reverts are appropriate in this context. If my edits are justified and comply with policy, I would like them to remain until other editors make a proper and good faith case otherwise. Can the AMA ensure this? I understand my content is sensitive for some people, and have taken pains to document the kind of material that ordinarily would have a difficult time finding such a reliable source.

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: open

Advocate Status:

• Elomis