Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:45, 4 February 2023

Case Filed On: 14:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Dwaink (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/dwaink

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

kt66 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:'

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

YesDwaink 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

I firmly believe the article(as it stands) opens wiki to possible libel/slander charges. Because the article slanders(negative light), by mentioning the political attacks and the disengagement by the Dali Lama from formerly acceptable Shugden practioners, especially since one of them that remain seperated from him, was one of his own teachers(HH's teacher also).I wish there to be no controversy on Kelsang's page, but if i am forced to live with it, then the other, equally valid side, of this arguement must be added in the same level of wiki as the charges lay. I don't think HH will stand for that long and perhaps we Buddhist can get back to practicing our paths rather than be forced into deeper public inspection of this "political" dirty laundry, and remove the negative light from this mans Wiki page. Dwaink 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

just wiki my name....dwainkDwaink 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

Full balance to this article, by removal of charges of controversy or addition of the answers'responses to these charges at the same wiki level as the charges are made. Dwaink 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary:

Discussion:

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:

Dwaink 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Information

Case Status: NEW

Advocate Status:

None assigned.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<big>'''Case Filed On:''' 14:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)</big>
+<big>'''Case Filed On:''' 14:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)</big>
 '''Wikipedian filing request:'''
 <!-- Do not change anything here. -->
-* {{user|trishm}}
+* {{user|Dwaink}}
+Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/dwaink
-Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/trishm
 '''Other Wikipedians this pertains to:'''
 <!-- Follow STEP 3 below -->
+* {{user|kt66}}
-*
 ''Wikipedia pages this pertains to:'''
 <!-- Follow STEP 4 below -->
-* [[Intelligent Design]]
+* [[Kelsang Gyatso]]
-* [[talk:Intelligent Design]]
+* [[talk:Kelsang Gyatso]]
 ==Questions:==
@@ Line 21: / Line 23: @@
 '''Have you read the [[Wikipedia:AMA FAQs|AMA FAQ]]?'''
+Yes[[User:Dwaink|Dwaink]] 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-Yes
 '''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
+I firmly believe the article(as it stands) opens wiki to possible libel/slander charges. Because the article slanders(negative light), by mentioning the political attacks and the disengagement by the Dali Lama from formerly acceptable Shugden practioners, especially since one of them that remain seperated from him, was one of his own teachers(HH's teacher also).I wish there to be no controversy on Kelsang's page, but if i am forced to live with it, then the other, equally valid side, of this arguement must be added in the same level of wiki as the charges lay. I don't think HH will stand for that long and perhaps we Buddhist can get back to practicing our paths rather than be forced into deeper public inspection of this "political" dirty laundry, and remove the negative light from this mans Wiki page.
-Policy conflict.
+[[User:Dwaink|Dwaink]] 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-I, along with many editors on the page,are finding it difficult to balance the three applicable policies and guidelines: NPOV, Reliability of sources and Fringe Theories.
-NPOV says to present the arguments in such a way as the proponents would be comfortable,
-Reliability of sources says be careful with claims that are not true, and defines what would be considered a fringe theory,
-and fringe theories says "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement.".   ID as the DI would have it fits that definition because of the incorrect scientific claims, i.e. that ID is a scientific theory (better than natural selection), not because of the idea of a supernatural creator.
-The policies conflict in trying to craft the leading paragraph, which is almost impossible to keep NPOV, and simultaneously not say anything incorrect, or endorse something that isn't true by definition.
 '''What methods of [[WP:DR|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.'''
-There have been many, many discussions, many of them in the archives, by extremely able editors.  This is not a trivial dispute by any means.
+just wiki my name....dwaink[[User:Dwaink|Dwaink]] 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-See [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#.22...say_that_intelligent_design_is_a_scientific_theory_that_stands_on_equal_footing_with.2C_or_is_superior_to.2C_current_scientific_theories_regarding_the_evolution_and_origin_of_life..22]]
-for other editors going around in the same circles.  There is a lot of discussion and dispute, but also a commendable amount of good will, assumption of good faith, diplomacy and so forth. The resolution needs to occur at the policy level.
 '''What do you expect to get from [[WP:AMA|Advocacy]]?'''
-Some guidance on how to resolve or prioritize the policies.
+Full balance to this article, by removal of charges of controversy or addition of the answers'responses to these charges at the same wiki level as the charges are made.
+[[User:Dwaink|Dwaink]] 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 ==Summary:==
 <!-- Follow the instructions for STEP 6 below -->
-I am requesting guidance on how to apply policy and guidelines to the leading paragraph of Intelligent Design.
 ==Discussion:==
@@ Line 73: / Line 72: @@
 *Answer:
+[[User:Dwaink|Dwaink]] 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 <!-- PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE: The following is for AMA use. -->
@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 -->
-'''Case Status:''' {{AMA case status|new}}
+'''Case Status:'''
+<span style="color:#0000CC;">'''NEW'''</span> [[Category:AMA Requests for Assistance|AMA Requests for Assistance]]
+[[Category:AMA Requests for Assistance/Cases|AMA Requests for Assistance/Cases]]
 '''Advocate Status:'''