style="background:#dfffdf"|

If you would like to see which advocates are currently accepting new cases you may check this list of currently available advocates.

If you would like an advocate to assist you in resolving a dispute, but do not have a particular advocate in mind, you may make a request here. AMA members will respond to your requests after reviewing your statement below. You do not have to identify yourself (with your Wikipedia user name) or the subject of the dispute (although explaining the nature of the problem may help us find a suitable advocate). However, at a minimum you will need to provide some contact information so that the advocate can get in touch with you.

You can also contact individual advocates directly. Some advocates have posted personal statements on a separate page for member statements, which may help you in selecting which advocate to work with. Some advocates have also announced there availability here.

Members' Advocates offer their assistance in representing you or assisting the presentation of your side of an existing dispute. If you are looking for Mediation or Arbitration, you should start that process in the appropriate manner, and then contact the AMA if you want someone to help represent your side. Members' advocates will also assist in other personal conflicts between users prior to mediation or arbitration stages.

Make sure you read and understand the Members' Advocacy Information and FAQ pages before making a request for advocacy.

Please place new requests directly below, at the top of this section.

User:Anateus Feldspar insists on reapplying a VFD tag which I contend was misapplied - in contradiction to the stated rules for VFD listing. Feldspar contends that the "do not remove" rule on the notice superceded the "Problems that don't require deletion" stipulation on the original deletion policy. As it stands, there seems to be some much broader misunderstanding of VFD policy, judging by the votes against: there is a popular consensus for deleting the article, on POV basis alone, in direct contradiction to the rules of WP:DP. The criticism of "POV fork" is likewise baffling, as there does not appear to be any similar treatment with the same scope. Even if the issue is scope of the article - VFD listing is in violation of WP:DP. The VFD notice was added quite quickly after the article was started, interfering with normal editing processes of renaming the article. -==SV 03:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a battle going back and forth in the Laura Bush article over the inclusion of extraneous information and POV regarding the accident where an acquaintance of Laura Bush was killed. I'm for just sticking to the facts and a short quote while others seem to want to turn it into an episode of Oprah. Should it be taken to mediation or arbitration? A little help! googuse 17:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Now there seems to be series of sockpuppets reverting the article in an attempt to curry an illusion of support googuse 19:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have protected the page for the time being.-gadfium 21:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe User Riccati has committed a personal attack against me in the form of a comment in one of his/her edit summaries. Quote: "NPOV revert to last Davidcannon; AladdinSE, I don't have time now to correct all your POV insertions, but did wipe your filth from Hariri's grave here -- perhaps others can remove the rest elsewhere." [1]. As per Wikipedia dispute resolution guidelines, the accused has been informed of objection, and the substance is listed in the article Talk page and the editor's Talk page. The editor has refused to apologize, and claimed that no PA was committed. A request for a third opinion was made, but not attended to. As this is not a matter of an editorial dispute where consensus building is a recourse, I am proceeding to the step of requesting an advocate. I wish to have this personal attack certified as such, and if the user does not apologize, then at least he/she should be officially warned that this action was indeed a personal attack, so that any future transgressions can be treated as a second offense. --AladdinSE 20:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Responded preliminarily --Neigel von Teighen 22:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a user will not allow criticism by a fellow Nobel Laureate in Literature, Alexander Solzhenitsyn to be included on the page. nobs

Request is being checked and worked with. User contacted for preliminary information. - KC9CQJ 02:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User responded, currently working on options to resolve issue. KC9CQJ 04:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The last user who vandalizes the page needs to be banned or blocked, as I said on one of those pages: [2], [3] and [4]. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• You might be the one that needs to be blocked, seeing as you have AMA Requests against you for putting false information in some pages. I will have to look furher into this matter. Xxpor 17:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've checked this page, and its been protected by User:Tony Sidaway following a revert war instigated by User:Mike Garcia, who has neither explained his actions on the talk page or the history. I've contacted Xxpor and warned Mike that unless he explains himself I'll seek an injunction. I hate to do this to a user requesting assistance, but I warned him twice already and promised the other users. Wally 01:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Wiki page that is supposedly a biography of a right-wing extremist celebrity, is being used for criminal purposes and deception. Most significantly, a large part of the page is being used to conduct a libelous malicious attack upon the celebrity's biographer (myself), and provides false statements of recent felony crimes by the celebrity that may be prosecuted. The Wiki page is thus a felony act of obstruction of justice. This celebrity pays a lot of money to control public image, and it appears that the Wiki page controller is on the celebrity's payroll. The real facts of the celebrity's life are omitted and deleted, NPOV warning has been deleted, false statements are being made and re-inserted. Seems like a scheme to use Wiki's neutral image to help cover up for felony crimes. I am not a Wiki veteran. Request assistance on this blatant violation of Wiki policies. Please e-mail to: timetobefree(at)lycos(dot)com.

This user, Drlsachs/81.69.164.53, is threatening legal action against Wikipedia on Talk:Patricia Cornwell, and is involved in a legal fight with the subject of that biography, an author. -Willmcw 22:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Contacted the requester, will update with status. --Wgfinley 05:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Slovakia#Revert_war. I'm not combattant and only request this since it hurts to observe it. So please bear with me if I don't follow the full requirements for a request, and if I may not get very involved in this. BTW, I also posted this on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts - maybe thisthat page offers a more lightweight way to solve the issue. — Sebastian 10:37, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't see anyone wanting an advocate there, or is it you? Maybe Wikipedia:Requests for protection will be more helpful than we up to now. Anyway, if a discussion begins, let us know. --Neigel von Teighen 17:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, nobody asked for it. I just happened to witness that revert war and I felt very bad for the people investing their time in what seems to be an absurd waste of energy. I don't think it's good for Wikipedia, and I'm afraid it might turn away reasonable editors and confuse innocent readers. I don't know what to do about it, but I feel like we ought to do something. I'm sorry if my above post was unclear – I realized I wrote "this" where I meant "that". So far, my post on that page has not born fruit yet. — Sebastian 22:39, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

I've filed a complaint against user Jayjg for abuse of Admin powers and for blatant Anti-Arab and Anti-Islamic bias. User Jayjg enforces a strict POV bias on all articles relating to Israel and would instantly revert any edits which (s)he perceives as tarnishing the image of Israel, or improving the image of Arabs, Palestinians or Muslims, even if factual. I am not the only person complaining about Jayjg, and wikipedia is littered with editors who received the same treatment. This link [[5]] will take you to te Arbitration page. I would appreciate any help in this matter.A.Khalil 01:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

A nasty revert war, in which an arbitrator(!) is repeatedly reverting a well meant contribution. See summary of events at top of talk page. Aberglas 10:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

As the AMA has previously indicated that it would like help in knowing who may need its assistance, I'll leave this here. A user named Tabib has left a mediation request concerning a content dispute with Rovoam. Both users are unfamiliar to me, and based on the level of frustration I'm perceiving in posts to WP:RFM and its talk page, it looks to me as though one or both users may not be fully familiar with the range of dispute resolution options (or their intended purpose). I hope they take no offense to my leaving a note here, suggesting that an advocate might at least offer their advice to either user -- I thought of trying to leave a note myself, but decided that it might not seem neutral to do so (even though I, knowing neither the involved parties nor the article, have no partisan feelings in the matter whatsoever). Thanks for the service you do here. Jwrosenzweig 23:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A user with several accounts (nightbeast, rememberme, etc) and a dynamic IP keeps reverting to a old version and refuses to edit their idea's in normally. 19:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just Separated non-province info to West Papua.

Moved Papua (Indonesian province) to Papua Province, Indonesia

Moved West Irian Jaya to West Irian Jaya Province, Indonesia

In accord with Wikipedia naming conventions, and what was proposed last week on discussion page. To confirm established world usage outside Wikipedia: Google "Papua Province" provides 737 English all non-Wikipedia pages; Google "Papua (Indonesian province)" provides 236 English only copies of Wikipedia pages.

I submit the people reverting the titles are only motivated by personality differences.

Repeated problems with User:John_Kenney who without knowledge of subject inserts his POV that the black people are unlikely to be able to organise a pro-independence movement; that their nationalist aspirations were created by a missionary minister who wrote a song. etc.

To enforce his POV he worked with Wik in a edit war last year & begun moving the articles to many titles. He recently he blamed the edit war upon another:

Fromm what I can gather, the current article was created on 13 Nov 2001 as Irian Jaya, and was moved to Papua two years later. Some months after that, Tannin moved it to West Papua, beginning the strife. john k 00:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In fact I suspect the real West Papua article that was created 15:15, 16 Nov 2001 (UT) was moved by John or Wik themselves, and may have been deleted the unknown title while his current West Papua re-direct remained.

Would like the original West Papua page with its history returned to West Papua so that the geography & history sections written for it can be returned & removed from above Province article which we do not have much specific information upon.

I think you might want an administrator, not an advocate...am I right? --Neigel von Teighen 19:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John_Kenney is an administrator (isn't he?). He appears to only pretend to discuss matters as a means to wear people down, when a third party forces him close to accepting something other than his original POV, a person who sounds like a sock-puppet interjects stopping a resolution.

• At the very least there is a personality difference, and I need someone to talk to him or bar him from Papuan pages due to unfounded bias.

For three years all I wanted was for Wikipedians to contribute if they knew the subject, or critique the pages if they didn't know the subject. John's efforts to re-arrange text and edit facts to downplay Papuan intelligence relects very poorly upon the Wikipedia community.

(original title indicated direct link to [6] - Keith D. Tyler [flame])

This is an article based around the Yale University paper: "Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control" as a suitable Wikipedia title where other on-going mass murders and related abuses in the region could be acknowledged without those reports overwhelming other Wikipedia articles about the region. Fair ?

The article became subjected to edit war and then the same persons moved it to other titles for POV reasons. The current West Papuan genocide has been edited to a re-direct to Human rights violations in western New Guinea where even the title of the Yale paper has been edited to the editors POV that no genocide or anything similar has occurred or is occurring. (recent comment: ... but nothing there suggests anything near genocide.)

There is already a conflic between San Marcos and Saint Mark issue in the article National University of San Marcos.And i want to request and assitance on it please.

The university article was stub until february of 2005, when i as student of this university decided to improve it as i can. I based on arguments from Catholic Encyclopedia in which it uses and anglicize version in which says University of Saint Mark decided to use this as a pipe link to peruvian articles related to National University of San Marcos, i never wanted to ask for change the name of the article, i just wanted to be specific with the anglicize use of the name.

But people involved in peruvian articles decided to improve it as Hasdruval which i thank him to his contributions, however a vote was begun by User:StarbucksFreak to decide which name should be used from the results of this vote i am still not conviced, i dont think so it reflect an accurate point of view from wikipedians.

The reason of why i come here is to ask you an advice is also because i feel i am threatened by User:Viajero and i think this because of his words and i quote :

In case you are not aware, the vote was 8-3 in favor of San Marcos. This issue is now closed; it is not open to further "interpretation"; no appeal is possible. However, if you continue to insert "Saint Mark" into articles, I will revert you. -- Viajero 17:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For this words i feel harrasment, user:Viajero in my personal point of view feels he is the owner of many articles related to peruvian topics such as Lima and Alberto Fujimori articles, and each time i try to clarify some, he reverts me, using arguments which i consider silly, such as brevity, clarity, etc..

He has a double standard to judge articles, in University of Saint Mark he says, its better to be brief, but in Alberto Fujimori article he says all what he wants.

It is not the first time i feel i have some kind of threat because of him,

previously, he said me, that because my english is not good i cant do edits on wikipedia, and i feel that as some kind of discrimination against me.

• And i quote
  • you are not the right person to be determing what correct Engish usage is

and in Lima city article he said If you are unable to accept native speakers of English correcting your texts, then you won't last very long here.

• even when i wanted to discuss the issue about motto in Lima city he said this
  • we are spending far too much time and energy on insignificant details.

I dont think so this is a proper way of how newly wikipedian should be treated, i humble ask to fellow members of wikipedia counsil of assitance to took my case and mediate if necessary.HappyApple 19:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been in a long-standing dispute with Itai (talk · contributions) over his creation of Template:Sisterproject, and subsequent use of it as a "meta-template" (a template-within-a-template that provides formatting). Over the course of this, I've gather input from the developers describing the negative server/database impact of such practices, and documented it at Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. Even after that, Itai continues to revert over this issue (and has been blocked for two 3RR violations over them). As one can see from his contributions, almost all of his recent edits have been to continue this. Because these are obscure templates, and there is a good deal of technical background to this, I've been unable to locate anyone willing to help convince him to stop, or even someone who could co-sign an RFC on the matter. Recently, evidence of my reverts has been presented against me in an Arbitration case, but I feel that it is this user, who does almost no other editing, that has caused this to be ceaseless. Even after I gathered the technical information, he seems more intent on getting his way than discussing.

In short, I ask someone to help first assist me in getting him to stop his reversions (since there is a definite server impact), and then also to help with the associated section of my arbitration case. I do not want to be punished for reverting in order to reduce the load on the servers. -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Initiated contact as I had already entered some info on his RfAr case, will update if accepted. --Wgfinley 04:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contact successful, I will advocate, member has accepted. --Wgfinley 05:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Several users have been proposing to remove non-sovereign States from the list, disregarding a de facto convention among different lists of countries that non-sovereign States are listed. There was an edit war. I appreciate assistance to help in the matter. — Instantnood 18:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

See below, already contacted on another case. --Wgfinley 04:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a little different from your normal appeal, first of all because I am making the appeal for someone who I think needs your help, and second because I think that this particular individual really needs two individuals if that is possible. One person will hopefully be one of your most experienced and effective Advocates for help with the Wikipedia:dispute resolution processes. The other person needs to be a good counsellor who is very patient and diplomatic and who can help with editing articles and with general Wikipedia policy-making issues. I also think this case is important because one part of the dispute involves an attempt to write, or more accurately rewrite, Wikipedia policy (specifically the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) related to the naming of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan-related articles, categories, and templates. There also seems to be an ever widening number of articles where this dispute is fought on (as well as multiple user's Talk pages), so just for the sake of the Wikipedia there needs to be an attempt to lower the heat in this dispute.

The person I am making the appeal for is User:Instantnood. I believe that this individual is a very sincere, but also a very head-strong individual. Unfortunately he has run into a couple of other head-strong individuals. Even though the results of their recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Instantnood are mostly in Instantnood's favour, they have now filed a WP:RFAR against him. That arbitration is currently still in the fact-finding stage while the arbitrators try to decide if it is just a content dispute that they will dismiss. Instantnood needs help with both effectively countering the changes that have been made, as well as turning some of the focus onto the accusers (since it takes at least two to have an edit war).

Because of the China-naming issues, Instantnood should get some help publicizing the issue ((Village Pump (Policy), Current Surveys, notifying the appropriate Wikiprojects, etc.) so that there are more people involved than the current very small group (for example, look at the number of people that voted in the Gdansk/Danzig referendum for example). Instantnood also probably needs some tutoring on both how to work towards consensus, and how to compromise, because if things have degenerated into an edit war on an article, then the desired way of writing Wikipedia articles has failed.

One final note of warning before anyone wades into this potential quagmire: The Political status of Taiwan is deliberately ambiguous, and the political status of Hong Kong is anomalous, so almost everybody's arguments will be half-right and half-wrong. Plus the de facto status of anything related to China, and especially Taiwan or the Republic of China, can be considered just as much "POV" as any other position. The best way to handle the China-related articles (but unfortunately probably not article titles) is to try to best describe everybody's POV on the issues and then find a "solution" for the rest of the article that everyone is equally unhappy with.

AsylumInmate 09:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you look at 27 Mar request below from Instanthood (The use of "mainland China") you can see he has been contacted. --Wgfinley 04:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting into an edit war since I have already deleted and been reverted twice. The issue is as follows: The Mestizo article cites "official" statistics regarding the percentage of mixed race populations in Latin America that seemed phony to me since I am familiar with research in this area. After requesting a reference three times, the poster in question answered that they came from the CIA. I went to the CIA web site and nowhere does it indicate who, where and when these statistics come from, that is, there is no primary source. Furthermore, I have googled and can't find any other reference to these statistics or even something similar. I can provide links to researchers who state that race statistics in Latin America are limited to estimates of indigineous communities and more recently, and only in five Latin American nations, to the descendants of Blacks. I would be grateful if someone familiar with the issue of the validity of statistics would be so kind as to mediate.

I am having the same problem in the Spanish version because it has been regarded that changing "official statistics" to "estimates" solves the problem of citing phony numbers.--Lupitaº 16:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I replied to this user indicating that a request for comment is what she is looking for where getting answers to her questions is concerned; I did notice she was having a problem with an abusive user on that page's talk section, however, and offered my assistance if she felt dispute resolution necessary. Alas, an examination of her contributions shows that filing this request was one of the last things she did on Wikipedia, so she may be gone for good. Wally 03:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to have assistance from people who are familiar with East Asian politics.

According to the article mainland China it is a term to refer to territories administered by the People's Republic of China (i.e. Communist) government, with Hong Kong and Macao excluded. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV section clear states that mainland China is a valid, acceptable and NPOV term to refer to PRC's territories other than Hong Kong and Macao.

Nevertheless some users have actively been moving articles from category:Mainland China to category:People's Republic of China, and put many categories titled ..of mainland China to WP:CFD. Massive editing and reverting have taken place in many articles all across Wikipedia to replace the words "mainland China" with "China" or "People's Republic of China".

Articles, categories, templates, etc. involved: template:East Asia, category:Airports of mainland China, category:Companies of mainland China, category:Cities in mainland China, category:Laws of mainland China, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion#Category:Laws of mainland China, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion#Category:Companies of mainland China, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion#Category:Cities in mainland China, Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China, Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, List of national parks of the People's Republic of China, Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, People's Republic of China's trademark law, category:World Heritage Sites in China, Special economic zone of the People's Republic of China. (this is not a full list, more may be added)

In fact there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#..of China or ..of the PRC → ..of mainland China. There is also a precedant at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China. However despite the discussion hasn't been closed, two users are already editing around.

Assistance is now necessary and essential. Please give us a hand if you are familiar with the issue. Thank you. — Instantnood 08:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Answered request. This user seems to be looking for an RfC and page protection, and I directed them to appropriate venues for both, with a note to make contact if events necessitating advocacy occured. Wally 03:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I need some help. Arbitration is being pursued against me even though I am open to mediation and to compromising about anything in dispute; I am willing to concede any point after reasonable discussion. Nevertheless, User:Snowspinner wants me banned from editing articles on a particular topic. I need someone to help me argue against the case being accepted, and if it is accepted, to help me argue against a ban. I am planning to leave Wikipedia if the ban is imposed, so that should indicate how seriously I take this. Everyking 13:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The case against me has been accepted. I need assistance as soon as possible. Everyking 08:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been accepted as a member advocate for this case --Silas Snider (talk) 23:43, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

- A user (User:Mike Garcia) is editing the System of a Down, Hypnotize and Mezmerize articles with incorrect information regarding release timings for both albums, as well as the first single. I've tried discussing this with the user on both of our talk pages, but unfortunately he simply cites a poor unreliable source. The user is unconvinced with my sources (MTV.com, blabbermouth.net and print media) and continues to revert the edits. He has also begun to be abusive on my talk page. Other users are making correct edits, but he continues to revert them as well. I've noticed that he was previously banned and I wonder if it was for similar behaviour. Thanks for any assistance you may be able to provide. MrHate 03:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've put this behind the other, older requests because it parallels the one below. I've referred this case also to User:Guanaco, and alerted User:Mike Garcia that these requests have been placed, as well as warning that if any further RfAs are received I'll have to go to the ArbCom and seek an injunction. Should further dispute resolution be necessary on either this issue or that below, I volunteer myself to act on behalf of both. Wally 00:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia is repeatedly editing the article with an incorrect release year for "The Ingredients EP" of 1989. I have attempted in the talk page to try and provide some evidence for the correct year of 1990, but he continues to claim i am wrong, citing only two poor and unreliable sources (both in fact show entirely different years, making at least one of them wrong regardless.) He has made no effort to defend his own sources after i pointed out their inconsistencies and ignored any of mine, including my mention of the 1990 copyright notice on the release (which i provided a link to scans of for verification) - his only reply to this was simply telling me to "Leave it the way it is now and don't come back". Apparently he is simply 'right' and that's all there is to it, and has threatened to ban me. I now have absolutely irrefutable evidence of the exact date in the form of the december 1990 t-shirt which provides all events and tour dates for the whole year, including the ingredients release on april 30th. Unfortunately, the only image i have available is a little rough, or i would have posted it immediately, but i am concerned he will simply ignore me once again (as he has already done with the copyright notice - which i thought was pretty irrefutable in itself), especially without a decent picture. I also see from his profile he has been banned from the site before - and is mentioned further down this very page regarding similar behaviour - and didn't think the issue should go unnoticed if he is returning to a pattern of destructive behaviour. 02:01, Mar 19, 2005

RfA from an anon replied to. As this issue involves a user under decidedly unusual circumstances, I advised that AMA involvement was not yet pertinent, as barely any discussion had occured to attempt to reach consensus and as the other user involved operated under special parameters, and advised that the anon contact User:Danny or User:Guanaco. Wally 03:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for help. Someone continues to add a flagrantly libelous statement to the entry on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. An editor, who seems to be an administrator of some sort, continues to say that the newspaper attacked a prominent politician's wife by calling her a "lesbian." There is no proof, either in the newspaper's internal library nor the internet (nor any other fee-based document retrieval service) that such a statement was ever made. Other erroneous statements about the newspaper were made but were deleted by an anonymous contributor. While issues have been raised in the talk section about this behavior, the organizers of Wikipedia should know that libelous statements are being made. They have no basis in fact and seem to stem only from the imagination of the poster. To my knowledge, neither the newspaper's publisher nor the other person libeled have knowledge of this editor's work. I appeal here because he seems to be an administrator.

• Posted by anon 147.72.93.172, who appears to be looking for an admin, not an advocate. Large amount of unsigned and frankly hard to follow messages on Talk:Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, mostly between the anon and User:Willmcw. There is also a revert war going on between the anon and User:Willmcw on the article page. - Keith D. Tyler [flame]

• I just discovered this request by chance. Long before I became involved the Anon user (user:147.72.93.172/user:147.72.93.199) was in a revert battle with user:Gamaliel over the "lesbian allegation". Since then we have found the correct facts of the incident, along with a great deal of aditional (referenced) info which has improved the article. The Anon was deleting large chunks of this new info, and making repeated threats of libel suits against editors and Wiki. The talk page is hard to follow because the Anon refuses to use Wiki norms, like adding comments at the bottom, indenting them, or signing them. He recently volunteered that he worked for the Tribune-Review's competition, and I responded that evidence (his IP addresses) showed the opposite. Since then he has not made further edits. I am proud of the work that I have done on Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and would be open to any suggestions on how to make it better, or on how to improve my editing. -Willmcw 22:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• PS To clarify, I think that mediation would be very helpful. This editor seems to have a difficult time understanding the Wiki process or Wiki norms. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Come to think of it, so do I.) -W.

• I've responded to User:Willmcw, who has contacted me directly. Planning to pursue an informal resolution process (Negotiation or informal mediation). Would appreciate an advocate for the anon user and possibly another to serve as an informal mediator. Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 00:37, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Keith D. Tyler for getting actively involved in a helpful way. You posted a well-written letter to the Talk:Pittsburgh Tribune-Review page, where the Anon, whom you've dubbed "Tribune Fan", would see it, in which you make some suggestions on his editing behavior and on how to proceed. [7]. "TribFan", if I may, responded by proclaiming the matter settled (without responding to the issues of his editing behavior):

Mr. Tyler, these issues were resolved. An earlier poster had continued to print that the newspaper had accused a political candidate's wife of lesbianism. This was easily proved to be false, with citations provided, but the person continued to deface the correction and reprint the lie. In law, this is known as an "intentional lie." When it continues to be uttered, even in the face of evidence that strongly disputes it, the act of repeating an "intentional lie" is conduct that proves the element of malice necessary in a libel case brought by public figures. I could not make a "legal threat," in your words, because I can't possibly be a party to the suit. I wasn't either of the wronged parties. The potential plaintiffs would be either the candidate's wife or the owner of the newspaper. [8]

Since his I.P. address indicates he may be an employee of the newspaper, his disclaimer about lawsuits seems to be a technicality. In any case, it appears to me that he has explicitly withdrawn his request for an advocate. I continue to think that an advocate or mediator would be helpful. If there are further problems with this editor, I assume the RfC would be the appropriate place to raise them. There has been some recent discussion with TribFan, myself, and other editors at Talk:Teresa Heinz Kerry. -Willmcw 00:50, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I noted the anon's response and I was planning to respond, specifically on his refusal to abide by my request that he follow standard WP Talk page conventions. Unfortunately I recently became mired in a tough case. However, the anon stated that he felt the dispute was resolved, so it's not a big deal now IMO. I do recommend RfC for further content disputes as a first course after Talk page discussion fails to reach an agreement. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 07:19, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like some help dealing with Snowspinners request for arbitration against me. If you don't yet hate me or feel you can get over it I'd appreciate it if you left me a message on my talk page. IRC would be the best way to discuss things privately with me, but I can also provide my email address if you can give me a way to communicate this with you. anthony 警告 01:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I am responding to the user. The RfAr is not yet accepted. Note that more than half the arbitration committee members have recused themselves. Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:12, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• For reference: The arbitration issues stems from a speedy delete of a user-space recreation of a VfD-deleted page. The VfU is here. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 00:42, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• The arbitration was merged with another unrelated complaint, and is open at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro_2. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 21:17, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ungtss has become more and more difficult to work with over the last month, now resorting to personal attacks on a post-by-post basis. Talk:Creation biology is a good example of this. He does not seem to understand the work of editting an encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 17:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I responded this user preliminarily --Neigel von Teighen 21:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm officially working on the case. --Neigel von Teighen 14:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Original title: Christian views of homosexuality: dead links or no?

Background: Recently, a vote about deleting an entire Wikipedia entry (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16) devoted to a single Bible verse was negative -- Wikipedia did not delete the Bible verse. This precedent would, as its goal, involve an eventual entire integration of the 1,000-page, 30,000-verse Bible into Wikipedia. While I don't think that this form of commentary is encyclopedic, it is not up to me to choose what the Wikipedia includes. However, the administrator of the debate seems to be User:OldakQuill, who was not particularly neutral as an administrator. Perhaps, though, he knows Wikipedia better than I.

The Issue: SimonP has changed all of the Bible links on the Christian views of homosexuality page to redirect to the pages on the actual passages. These pages don't exist, so all the user is confronted with is a bunch of dead links. Originally, all of the links went straight to the books of the Bible; documentation of these exist, but it is not particularly thorough. My personal opinion is that some data is better than no data, so we should link to the pages on each book of the Bible until such time as the actual passages exist. I just really don't think that having broken links for the next 4-5 years (heck, this might just be a fad that never gets completed) is helpful to anyone.

SimonP seems to want to turn this into a revert war; Angr has responded in kind, and I've avoided joining the revert war on Angr's side. The revert war is the reason I'm bringing it to the AMA. SimonP's last edit's description seems to indicate that he views the John 20:16 keep vote as a mandate from Wikipedia to keep these dead links.

It doesn't look like long-term resolution will come out of mediation, but it could be tried.

What I Need: I'm still a relative beginner to Wikipedia, I need to know what actions can (and, more importantly, should) be taken.

• First off, should the Bible verses query that started all this be relayed to Arbitration? Does the issue of explicating an entire work needs a binding solution from them?
• Secondly, does Wikipedia advocate making broken links in the hope someone will create the pages they're referring to?
• Third, am I right in thinking it better to have a broken link over a fixed link?
• Fourth, should this be relayed to Mediation and/or Arbitration? Which should it go to?

Thank you guys very much for your time; you have no idea how much it is valued by the rest of us.

-- Chris Drostie 04:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IMO:

1. No, I don't think so.
2. Actually, generally yes. But this smells like a slightly extreme case of redlinking. Frankly, I would be inclined to wait and see if a WikiProject for bible verse is created and actively contributed to, and it very well may, and which leads to more thorough population of bible verse articles, decimating the red sea of links. (heh, heh.) Now on the other hand, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links) suggests that if more than 10% of the links on a page are dead, it would be generally considered "overlinked". That page looks like 1/3 of links are red.
3. You mean that the other way around, don't you? Either way, I'm not sure how to answer that question; I don't think there is a clear consensus. Certainly links with content are better than dead links. And the general convention seems to have been that you link to the most fitting existing article on a topic, and then once a more detailed page exists, someone will update the link to the more detailed article. This happens all the time.
4. I doubt it. One avenue may be to encourage SimonP and those who voted Keep in the VfD (as a group via the VFD page or Talk:John 20:16 talk page, not via a mass commenting on all their user pages) to form or contribute to a WikiProject on bible verses and start filling them in.

Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Keith.

1. Cool. I'm glad I didn't go rushing there first, then.
2. I'll bring up the overlinking issue on the Talk:Christian views of homosexuality page if the debate continues.
3. Yeah, I meant the other way around. I'm thinking that perhaps, as a show of mediation, I should do both: Leviticus 18:22 ... I'm hoping that this form of help would satisfy all users in question.
4. Do you think I should start this WikiProject myself without a goal of maintaining it? Or should I just write in the Talk pages for the verses that a WikiProject should be formed?

--Chris Drostie 04:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would only create the project if you're willing to coordinate it. IMO it should be SimonP that creates a WikiProject, since he is basically intending to kick off a project of sorts. That would be the established way to kick off and organize a series of articles of such a scale. And he ought to know that. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 06:29, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I request an advocate to represent me with regards to what I see are perpetual and outstanding conduct issues on the part of User:Sam Spade. I would like to note that this is a culmination of collaboration in several articles throughout several months. It does not directly relate to content (though not independent from these issues, either), but rather what I percieve (and argue, have evidence to substantiate) as the inappropriate conduct of the aboevmentioned user. Unlike myself, Sam Spade is very familliar with the innerworking of official Wikipedia policies and channels, and in general, the procedural details of the Wiki. This places me at a disadvantage with respect to evaluating suitable courses of action (including but not limited to Wikipedia:dispute resolution), and I think I could greatly benefit from an advocate to better aid me in establishing a frame of reference for these as well as for any consultative purposes pertaining to this case. Thank you, AMA advocates, for considering my request. Hopeful for a positive response, El_C 01:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Wally, for volunteering to be my advocate. Much appreciated. El_C 08:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LOL, jumped the gun on me. :) As El_C stated, so I am. Wally 04:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The text of this request, which became an long and heated argument, have been moved to /dnagod vs. jpgordon et al.

A summary which is believed to reasonably reflect the content of the request and arguments is included below.

Please discuss issues with this summary on Wikipedia talk:AMA Requests for Assistance/dnagod vs. jpgordon et al page.

Note that the summary below is based on the content of the discussion here, and does not currently reflect any initial investigation into the matter, nor the viewpoint of any AMA member or of Wikipedia.

User:dnagod added 8 links to the Holocaust denial article, each of which were to holocaust denial sites which question the generally accepted belief that Jewish people were executed at Nazi concentration camps during WWII. An edit war ensued in which these links were deleted, mainly by User:jpgordon, an admin, as well as User:SlimVirgin.

Overall, this is the recent stage in a pattern of abuse by user:jpgordon who repeatedly excludes the addition of links and content which are contrary to a pro-Jewish standpoint. This practice is not compatible with the WP principle of NPOV.

User:dnagod desires that these links be reviewed by the powers that be and be confirmed to be valid and contributory to the topic, and thereafter reinstated to the page.

User:dnagod further feels that there exists a cabal of pro-Jewish interests at WP which conspire to exclude anti-Jewish sentiment from Wikipedia, especially articles on topics related to Jews, Judaism, or Zionism. Additionally, this cabal conspired to have the article Jewish ethnocentrism deleted. (vfd) The existence of this cabal is obvious to anyone who researches the history of these cases.

Holocaust denial is a valid belief and worthy of both coverage as well as inclusion, on equal footing with other viewpoints, in Wikipedia. In many countries, holocaust denial or even holocaust agnosticism (summarizer's term) is illegal and persecuted.

User:dnagod would like to see Wikipedia administrators and arbitrators engage in an ongoing and organized practice of constant close monitoring of jewish supremacist, jewish, pro-jewish, and jew-sympathising users, to prevent them from adding Jewish-biased material to articles or develop pro-Jewish slants in articles. Ideally, he would also like to see close monitoring of Jewish-related articles as well as of any article on any emotionally controversial topic.

He has been the target of terms of personal attack including "nazi", "white supremacist", and "racist". Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia.

Fundamentally, though, his current issue is that the 8 links referred to above (see full text on subpage) be reviewed, confirmed, and readded to the article in question. He furthermore does not feel that adding these links this would cause the article to become a directory.

User:jpgordon contends that his assessment of user:dnagod's ethnic views are supported by the posts by a user at a neo-nazi web forum who is believed to be the same person as user:dnagod. User:jpgordon finds this material disgusting.

According to User:jpgordon, user:dnagod has likewise engaged in personal attacks and name calling, including phrases such as "immature children", "jewish supremacist", and "lackey of jews". (user:dnagod uses such terms in his statements here, and defends them as obviously accurate statements.)

If you want arbitration, this is not the place. You need to request it here; however I warn you that at the moment they will not take your case. There are other dispute resolution processes you need to engage in first, including a request for comment and, if at all possible, mediation (this group's been a bit spotty lately, so that may not be possible. Further information can be found here: Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution, Wikipedia:Mediation and Wikipedia:Arbitration. Start with the RfC, see what other users have to say and if you still feel the situation is unresolved proceed to the next steps. You cannot leap right to arbitration unless the committee allows it, and they won't. Wally 00:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade also responded to User:dnagod and is providing advice on the member's options.

User:dnagod was banned indefinitely, and expressed interest in forming his own WP fork. User:Sam Spade has begun an inquiry into the indefinite ban as a wrongful block [9]. There is also quite a lot of discussion(s) regarding the Jewish Ethnocentrism article on that page. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:04, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Can someone or multiple users please mediate a NPOV dispute over Homophobia. See relevant discussion on talk page. Apollomelos 09:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've contacted this user, and recommended an RfC and mediation, as well as volunteering myself as an amateur in the latter capacity. Not a case requiring user representation at this time. Wally 03:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about the platform of this specific type of government has met with little results. The page blatantly provides misleading information.

My complaints and claims:

The Liberal Party of Australia is not neoliberal but conservative. However, the user Xtra has refused to listen to reason, despite facts backing up each claim. References and citations have confirmed this conservative standing. However, attempts to get this innaccurate and false information corrected has been met with ridicule and partisan replies. I also object to the fact that the person running the page does in fact support for the very organisation he is defending. How can that be neutral? How can this page continue to provide false information? And how can he possibly be trusted to show partiality?

The definition of neoliberal pupports that "A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth" [link]:. The actions of the Liberal party (which I have linked to see Talk:Liberal Party of Australia oppose this notion of "social justice" and instead prefer social conservatism and therefore do not represnt neoliberal policies (by definition).

Post a reply to this anon on his/her talk page; advised RfC and mediation, as it is thus far an editorial dispute between two users on a single page about a single topic. Full representation not necessary at this time. Wally 04:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I fear I am about to start an edit war, and at this point in my life I am lacking the patience to be civil. Some level-headed help, please? Operation Biting is a nice little article. Another user did a cut-and-paste so now we have two little articles (ours is still nicer). I asked him to remove it. He said no. I deleted it, he restored it. I am (as I said) in need of some adult supervision on this. [[Paul, in Saudi 16:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)]]

I can do it. This is not an edit wr yet, but it will turn on one. --Neigel von Teighen 17:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does the above description accurately reflect this issue? I'm not 100% clear on what this is about. - Keith D. Tyler [flame]

I realize this is probably one of the most controversial topics on Wikipedia. Unfortunately a new dispute has arisen, and I think a resolution process aught to be initiated. Please examine the article and related Talk page. We have attempted to reach consensus but, while some compromise was reached, there remains an outstanding disagreement. My inclusion of a caricature keeps getting deleted. I beleive the Talk pages fully explains the dispute, so there is no need to reproduce it here. Thank you very much for your assistance.--A. S. A. 17:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Copied from requesting user's talk page, 1 February, following contact earlier that day by User:Alex756: Thank you very much for your initiative. I put in a Request for Comment, and the resulting rejuvenated Talk discussions resulted finally in a consensus, and the caricature that was repeatedly deleted has been finally agreed upon and will stay. If it anyone reneges and deletes it again, I will follow your helpful directions and contact an advocate.--A. S. A. 07:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC). Therefore, this one was actually dealt and dispensed with in an expeditious manner, and no further action was needed. Wally 03:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to get this entry cleaned up for the past week or so, and there is a particular user that I believe is performing a variety of reverts from several dirfferent IP addresses and/or there are "protectors" who seem to be holding up this article and reverting edits, although I find it hard to believe that there three adults who are in concert with this article. The article, as posted on Wiki lacks NPOV. The article as posted on Wiki lack continuity. The article as posted on Wiki is meant to impress rather be factual. For example, I have been trying to fix a simple series so that it builds in importance and is consistent structure; however one of the protectors reverts it so that the most famous (and least like the others) appears first. In another instance, a picture of a grown man appears riding a small childs bike keeps appearing in the listing because it "livens it up", but it has no components that make it identifiable with OWU. I have tried talking one of the protectors through it but they are steadfast that Wiki is all about adding things rather then being concise. By comparsion, this article is running about three thousand words when entries for like institutions (with higher ratings) are about 1/3 in size, but contain much more usefull information. I have posted a suggested rewrite (using the current material) in the "talk" session. Help!!

I am one of the users that Stude62 mentions. I am surprised to see this "complaint". I have no problem whatsoever with reorganizing the sentences to make an article with better mechanics. However, Stude62 seems to be willing to just delete stuff and hasn't added anything to it, yet (except for some bizarre church references). So, that to me seems unacceptable.

Here is what I posted to the OWU's discussion page to him: The changes that you suggest, i.e. reorganizing the mechanics of paragraphs and rephrasing the what's already there to shorten the number of words is fine. I really like how you rephrased them. Go ahead and make such changes that reduce the number of words...as long as you do not remove information without discussing such intentions here first.

Also, I don't know why you think that the man on the bike picture is from a recruitment catalogue?!? Can you point which one? Name, etc? I'd love to see it there because this picture is a personal one so there is no way what you are saying is true :-)

Your example with the radio station is brilliant. Add these things too the article if you are interested in them as a reader. So far, I haven't seen you add any information, though...about things that you would like to see. "user:rananim" 20:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs to be pointed out that based on postings on this and another board User:Rananim is also apparently editing under User:132.236.38.114.

As for the "bizarre church references" I am trying to clarify the role of the Methodist Episcopal Church in OWU's history. User:Rananim / User:132.236.38.114 should be referred to the history of the [United Methodist Church] to untangle who he/she thinks is bizzare.

If you find a reference by the college's own publications that it was founded or has an affiliation with the Episcopal Church, then fine, go ahead and change that. As a student at Ohio Wesleyan, I have never seen/heard such a reference so that's why I believe it is bizzare. Rananim 20:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen: This is not a place to engage in debate. Please have discussions about the article on the article's Talk page. I would recommend that you try to bring in outside opinions on this matter, perhaps via Request for Comments, and refrain from reverts or deletions for the time being. Hopefully there are others with knowledge of this subject who can assess the current version as well as Stude62's draft rewrite. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:01, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kieth-

I am sorry. I let someone get the better of me and I apologize to everyone. Stude62

This issue is pretty much done, according to my examination of the talk page. This issue had little to do with the University page in the first place, and is now a resolved character dispute. Wally 03:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A small edit war is under way. LexCorp (me) and shanedidona are reverting each other. It started when I introduced Creation Science to the list and then shanedidona rved without comment. I rved back and then he deleted my entry and instead introduced Evolutionary Science without comment. I then rved again this time using the talk page to explain to shanedidona first that a revert should be commented and to argue that Evolutionary Science is neither a real terrm or oxymoron for that matter. After that he did not revert but introduced Evolutionary Science again in the page this time using the talk page to offer me a compromise deal that if both terms are in the list he will be ok with it. I have answer no to this as this is a project to disseminate factual information and as such Evolutionary Science can not be considered a oxynoron. I reques assistance as to what steps to follow from here. Yours --LexCorp 17:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: Well it seems that for the moment the dispute has subsided so I will leave the request in stand by mode.--LexCorp 00:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by user. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 18:28, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

(Please note the above statement was made by Mr. Tyler, without my knowledge or permission, it has nothing to do with me.) Request for advocate by UserWikiUser. I request a reasonable person to help me against abuse by several people but in particular a user called ChrisO, who has hounded me against all wikipedia rules for most of the time since I registered 7 months ago - to the point where I have felt suicidal. He is abusing me now in a sort of frenzy and says he will shortly "ban" me "long term" as I have filed a Mediation request against a user, and BEFORE I have had time to file a Mediation appeal re him. (I warned him recently that if he did one more attack I would file for Mediation re him. Now hence his upping the level of his attacks.)

When I filed for Mediation, among other abuses of the rules he said: "You also have no right to abuse Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures for your own ends, as in your frivolous arbitration request last August and the equally frivolous mediation request you've made this week.". This is untrue, I do have the same right to file a Mediation appeal that anyone else does.

And is breaking the Mediation procedure by flaming me beneath my appeal on the Mediation page with lies about me, which is against the wiki rules. He is as clearly determined to stop me having a Mediation appeal re him and the other person I've asked to stop abusing me, as he is to ban me simply for editing. I don't know why he has this incredibly extreme obsession against me, but I SEEK ASSISTANCE with preventing him from using the wikipedia to harrass me and stopping my normal use of it, to the detriment of my health.WikiUser 16:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like this personal attack cases. I contacted the user preliminarily. I can't take this case, so I restored the request. --Neigel von Teighen 22:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:ChrisO has rejected mediation [10] and indicated his intent to take the issue to arbitration [11]. Is anyone involved in this case? - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 00:53, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration request is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WikiUser. Evidence includes allegations of anon posting by User:WikiUser with language bordering on either the violent or the paranoid, to pages of various users including Jimbo Wales. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WikiUser/Evidence. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 05:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I should note that this user came to us looking for advocacy; there is now an arbitration request against him, which is proceeding. Due to a small dispute between myself and the requestor I do not consider myself appropriate to take the task. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 07:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is! Looks like he will be banned for a long time, so this request should probably be removed. violet/riga (t) 00:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, I reverted an edit to Dan Crippen made by the above anon user. He reverted it back and in his summary line justifying his revert he called me a "known vandal." My problem with the information he added was that it was utter speculation about Crippen's name being circulated as a replacement for the current outgoing NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe. Not only should an encyclopedia not be a repository for rumors, he credited it to a Website called NASAWatch which was odd, since it's essentially a fannish blogsite (he also added an external link to NASAWatch, which smacks as possibly someone involved with the site looking for some free advertising). Anyway, I posted a message on the IP's usertalk page asking him to reconsider his revert, but given the rude and inaccurate way he tagged me as a "known vandal" in the edit summary I am not anticipating an easy resolution. Katefan0 16:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like he voluntarily reverted. Must've been my appeal on his userpage (shocked!) Man, y'all are more effective than I'd thought. ;) I withdraw my request. Thanks. Katefan0 20:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Congrats. Dispute resolution always starts with attempting to talk with the other party about the issue. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Radicalsubversiv has accused me of vandalism and sockpuppetery.

I asked him to withdraw these personal attacks and to say sorry.

He has failed to do either.

Can I please have assistance before I seek arbitration which I would rather avoid if he withdraws his falsehoods. Ollieplatt 20:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• An arbitration between User:Libertas and User:Radicalsubversiv (brought by the latter) was decided on 28-Jan-2005. The case -- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas -- found, among other things, that User:Ollieplatt, among other minor accounts, is a sockpuppet for User:Libertas, a banned user. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:32, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I request help in resolving the following dispute:

The Note at the end of the article which reads Senators Lyndon Johnson of Texas and Estes Kefauver and Albert Gore of Tennessee were the only Southern senators who refused to sign.

should either be removed as extraneous information

or

No Republican Senators signed. should be included User:Nobs

I believe this disagreement has been mooted. The text of the manifesto, including the list of signers, has been moved to Wikisource. -Willmcw 19:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:Alikar vs. User:70.19.102.225 (me) Alikar has not allowed contributors outside a small clique of people to contribute to the Graffiti article. He has reverted every single edit by user:70.19.18.147 and other "outsiders" with some petty comment. I thought wikipedia is a community allowing the free exchange of ideas? when has it become an elitist clique? please review the history of the page and judge for yourself. I also demand user:Slowking Man to LIFT the ban on 70.19.102.225, that 17 yr old kid is NOT A JUDGE.

After reviewing the history of the article, and seeing blanking by User:70.19.102.225, I contacted User:Alkivar to see if my analysis met with what happend to the article. Reversion was mainly done to keep users within this subgroup from listing themselves in a list of renowned graffiti artists from other primary sources, which are cited at the end of the article. After Alkivar reverted the article to its original content, user 70.19.102.225 blanked the entire article and made a nasty comment instead, and thus, was banned. Although Wikipedia is permitting the free exchange of ideas, it is not to be used for personal vanity. KC9CQJ 02:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should the original, petitioning user be open to alternate resolution, I would be more than happy to revitalize his request and serve as an advocate to insure appropriate resolution. KC9CQJ 04:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For older requests, see Archives: 1 2