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 their 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.

I would very much like to request help over at John Lott. A new user (Albert Lowe) is restoring POV edits by John Lott himself. His argument is that if he himself does the edit, even if the edit is initially done by John Lott, it's not someone editing autobiographically. Could we get someone with authority to clear this up?

I would please like some help from moderators with Death By Stereo. A user (Allroy - the return of Peacethruvandalism) is being a disruption and continues editing the page with incorrect information, regarding the forming year. He is the one with bad information and kept changing 1996 to 1998, then becomes unconvinced with my sources ([1], [2], [3] and [4]) that don't say 1998. The user has refused to stop doing it and needs to be banned again and all his contributions removed. I've noticed he was previously banned as his old account Peacethruvandalism and I wonder if it was for similar behavior. I just need help with this ASAP before he does it one more time and he's gone (I'm guessing)! -- Mike Garcia | talk July 16, 2005 14:13 (UTC)

Hey MIke - you should probably take things like this to Danny, as he's supposed to act as your advocate in things like this. Snowspinner 03:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Would any interested advocats please take a look at the discussion of the neutrality of the first paragraph of Truth to see what can be done to resolve this dispute peacefully? email muddyboggs at hotmail dot com

Perhaps article history is not something wikis find important or perhaps this is specific to wikimedia or even Wikipedia:

I've observed a few instances where an article's history has been altered or even truncated! I've also seen instances where users have taken ownership for edits that weren't theirs to begin with - they were mine! Is this standard behavior of a wiki? This kind of mysterious altering of article history seems to violate some primordial law of time. A historical event happens, the software should not erase or allow the erasure/alteration of the event itself. This is consitent with software tools such as configuration management systems or more loosely known as, revision control systems.

This arbitrary alteration of an article's history is foreign and in some respects offensive.

For example, Evangelical Free Church was listed on the 'requesting information page' as an article that didn't exist and needed information. I proceeded to provide basic content. I prompted a friend to work on it with me and we did, but to our dismay was subsequently trashed/truncated by a vandal as we later discovered when another wikipedian restored our latest edit and summarized it by saying, "reverted vandalism". We were pleasantly surprised and proceeded with a couple more edits and then left it to others. This all occurred in February, in January it was listed as a info needed article. Looking at the history on the article shows that none of this ever happened!! Nor what we did to work on it!! It even was made to look like the article had been created with an extensive essay - far much less than I started the empty article out as.

Perhaps I don't understand the evolution of articles here or the technical morphing process (underworkings of the wiki software) but it seems to me that an article under a specific title would continue to be that same article when retrieved under that same title. Help? .digamma 23:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, I seem to have solved the problem with the example I sited above - the article was renamed. However, the question remains since I have seen some odd behavior from time to time - wondering where my edits have gone. I do have a good memory and Im not old. .digamma 23:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Has there been any accounts of hacking/vandalism of article histories? .digamma 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like dealing with people who are on the sides of Nazis, Zionists or Islamists. The problem is, I find that Wikipedia is filled with these crackpots who do anything to push their agendas and little is being done about it. I can't seem to find peace and/or legitimate scholastic contributions to this "encyclopedia". Everybody I meet seems partisan, but all the people who keep to themselves find their edits being controlled by them(I have checked various neutral edits being violently reverted without remorse). I know about the caveat under the editing page, but is it really in Wikipedia's best interests to allow this fighting to go on by such a loophole? So many people of all different persuasions I have met randomly online, tell me that they will not use my Wikipedia sources for the chief reason that anybody can edit and that the information is suspect. I implore the Wikipedia management to do something about this and to purge its ranks of those who are on a vilification spree, in favour of their POVs.

User:TheUnforgiven considers me to be a "Nazi" because I reverted his edits on Aryan Invasion Theory (a topic, btw, that has nothing to do with Nazism). The same edits had already been deleted by User:Mustafaa, but restored by User:TheUnforgiven. When later added to Old European culture they were deleted by User:Dbachmann. Paul B 10 July, 23:41 2005 (UTC)

Who are all racist-minded, like you! TheUnforgiven 23:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now again, User:Jayjg has jumped to his Zionist friend's aid for the mere sake of suppressing dissent. He's trying to get me to break the 3RR, on something so trivial and out of scale to its importance. This filibuster is a means for solidarity and conformity to their influence at the Wikipedia. [5] TheUnforgiven 03:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to see what user(if any) is changing my updates(edits?) but the dispute is about one word that needs definition in a vague description. The word is "normality" in this article: Moderation. I have already "reverted" to my update twice, and I do not want to violate the Three revert rule! Please help a noob!

PS - This place is almost awesome!

I feel like an anon user is attacking me all the time, and it's frustrating. They aren't acting rationally, so I don't feel I can make a reasonable argument, because the person will just attack me again. I can't ask for consent for mediation because the anon user constantly has a new IP address. I want to do what is best for the article, but I don't feel like I can do that while I'm being attacked. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 4 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

I wish to request help regarding User:Zereshk in what I consider POV-pushing. My previous tries to engage in a constructive talk with him has been unsuccesful, and has resulted in him calling me names, writing them in Persian possibly to avoid English readers understand the words (in Talk:Tehran for example, where he reverted a few hours of my work, including completely removing a section on city governance). He avoids engaging in constructive conversation with me. Also, my previous attempt to stop him from posting verbatim material copied from articles from the web has been unsucsessful, him claiming that copying material from Iranian websites to the servers of the Wikimedia foundation in Florida is OK.

Also, he tries organizing other people to push something I don't consider pro-Iran as they call it, but pro-their own interpretation of Iranian affairs. See Talk:Iran for example.

I am asking for help here specially because I am an admin and wish to ask for advice to make sure I don't abuse my priviledges. roozbeh July 3, 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Where should I report this matter ? This swami was implicated in a trial where he was found guilty of abusing his disciples.The person who is continously editing this article is obfuscating facts.I am removing those links but the other person is posting different sections of the same website - obviously spamming !!! Thank You.

An anonymous user keeps reinserting some weird racist theory in the Virago article, the most off-kilter part being "Because the Jewish Boasianism controls the West serving Jewish group interests (cf. MacDonald, "Culture of Critique",2002), only the Chinese have been maintaining the race concept and a serious anthropology until 2005". I know I have not followed Wikipedia etiquette in my edit summaries, but at some point, a rose is a rose, and bullshit is bullshit.

Note that this is a spillover from a lengthy dispute about the the German article [6], where the same user (obviously, coming from the same IP ranges) kept reinserting a very long essay; this ended with the page being protected. Since on the talk page there [7] the user proved totally resistant to explanations why his content was not appropriate in that form and place, I have not bothered to try arguing with him here.

Oops, forgot to sign. Please, someone help, it's now down to name-calling. --Brazzy 4 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

The anonymous user has now started deleting my entry on the talk page where I tried to explain the situation. --Brazzy 07:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we ago again with another problem! A user (PetSounds) is editing on Green Day's first album 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours by adding the correct release date (1991). The album was acutally copyrighted, published and released in 1990 (as printed on the back cover). I've tried discussing this with the user before he/she has threatened to revert me again before violating the 3 revert rule, I've reverted the user only 3 times. -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:13, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The album in question was recorded and published in 1989/90, and initial releases (EPs and a short LP) were indeed issued in 1990. However, the edition of the album in question was compiled and released on July 1, 1991. I've provided the proof and yet this volatile person (from what I've read on the Talk:Bill_&_Ted's_Excellent_Adventure page) is ignoring the presented proof and refuting the true release date. I happen to own the disc and it does not say 1990 on it. Here is the amazon link that shows the true release date: [link]. Here is the allmusic.com page that states "1991" as the release year: [link]. I think that speaks for itself. I'm new to this site and have added much to the albums pages, yet this individual has been banned for behavior such as this. I hope for a swift resolution. Much thanks in advance. PetSounds 28 June 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Yes, it does say 1990 on it PetSounds, see: [8] and it does make the album released in 1990. I told you 1991 is wrong. -- Mike Garcia | talk 28 June 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Mike please calm down. That link gives me nothing on my computer, but I presume it is meant to be a scan of the back cover. Have you read my note on your talk page and below? the wub "?/!" 28 June 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Hey there. I think the problem here, as I've mentioned to Mike on his talk page, is a mixup between the copyright date and the release date. IANAL but I think albums are copyrighted as soon as recording is finished. This is the date that apppears on the back of the album. The album may actually be released for sale later, and in some cases not until the next calendar year. Wikipedia uses the release date, which can be found at Amazon, allmusic.com etc. A similar thing applies with movies (e.g. Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure) -- the wub "?/!" 28 June 2005 20:37 (UTC)

Thanks very much for confirming my release dates The wub. Now is there a way we can prevent Mike from reverting my correct info? Because he's STILL doing it.... PetSounds 28 June 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Some user (Dpbsmith) is editing part of American Idiot by Green Day the wrong way regarding the size of the image. I've tried discussing with the user about this before some other users were threatening to ban me. The other user (Mike Garcia) was trying to make correct edits but Dpbsmith and the other user (pmam21) continues to revert them as well, especially the image. I've noticed on the talk page the users were taking a poll about the image and I wanted to vote for the one Michael (who was banned in 2 years) uploaded. Also, there is nothing the users can do to stop me, especially Dpbsmith. -- 205.188.117.66

• See Talk:American Idiot for background on this matter. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The consensus on that article's talk page is in favor of the other image, but Mike Garcia, and his possible anonymous sock-puppet, are being arrogant and obnoxious about it as usual. This is one of several really stupid edit wars Mr. Garcia has been involved in (see Mezmerize). Garcia deserves another ban, this one for life without possibility of parole, in my opinion. *Dan* 02:39, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• This issue has nothing to do with the size of the image. It's about the quality. How is one image more correct than the other? I agree that Mr. Garcia should be banned. As I stated somewhere, he's done some contributions, but looking at what he's doing, he deserves a ban. -- pmam21^talk_articles 05:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• If this and the anon reverts on American Idiot are Mike (which I very much suspect they are) he should be banned for breaching the condition Jimbo placed on him- "He will edit only under his new Mike Garcia account" I have brought this up with his mentor Danny. -- the wub "?/!" 18:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, please don't ban me and kick out of this site again. -- Mike Garcia | User talk:Mike Garcia 01:39, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you don't want to be banned again, maybe you should try acting in a manner that doesn't get you considered for banning. *Dan* 02:26, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is a major war going on at the Monarchist League of Canada between myself and User:AndyL, with a little input from User:Peter Grey. This argument needs some serious mediation, so I'm calling on any Advocates to step in and help bring about a resolution to this issue. It is something which may well play out on other monarchy related pages in Wikipedia. Thanks. --gbambino 23:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel some attention needs to be brought to the actions and attitudes of a particular administrator: AndyL, particularly in relation to the pages covering subects attached to the Canadian monarchy: Monarchy in Canada, Elizabeth II of Canada, the Monarchist League of Canada & Governor General of Canada. I have unfortunately been dragged into a number of revert wars with him, even though communication on the related Discussion pages is attempted. Provided proof and strong argument is disregarded in favour of his personal opinion, a good example of which can be seen in his unfaltering stance on the Crown in Canada being "British," regardless of quoted extracts from articles written by a constitutional expert, as well as logical argument on my part. ([Talk:Monarchist League of Canada])

AndyL has been identified, by outside sources, as a staunch republican and anti-monarchist. His posting history on Wikipedia will reveal this to be true, and his arguments for many edits to monarchy related pages are nothing more than republican opinion without any fact to back it up. Thus, he has a strong POV and uses his administrator position to push the POV into Wikipedia pages.

As well, after instigating a consideration for deletion of the page Elizabeth II of Canada he immediately began deleting large sections of the article. Removing large portions of text from the page a) influenced the opinions of those casting a 'vote' on the article, and b) violated Wikipedia policy which states that there should be a 5 day lag time for discussion before the article is deleted, and that the person who instigated the consideration for deletion should not be the one to delete it. Though he did not delete the article completely, he did remove large parts of it, section by section, the day after instigating discussion.

In general he has hijacked the Wikipedia articles related to the Monarchy of Canada, pushing his POV with a bullying attitude and starting revert wars on a number of occasions. I did not come to Wikipedia to partake in war, however AndyL seems to want to draw other Wikipedians who do not agree with his opinions into one.

I hope this issue can be resolved in due course, and I would appreciate some assistance with the matter. gbambino

I'm sorry gbambino but reverting your edits, posting you on the 3RR page on your fourth revert and posting a VfD on one of your articles is not administrative abuse - ie no administrative powers have been used. If I had summarily deleted the article or banned you that would be something else. And no, removing parts of the article and moving them to another article is not "deletion" (any editor can do that), deletion is pressing the delete button that admins have and making the article and its history completely disappear.AndyL 16:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I leave it to the other administrators to decide on this issue. gbambino

I don't think there are any admins in the AMA. AndyL 18:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Big feud between myself and User:Monicasdude (this link is red because he apparently created his username and then deleted his User Talk Page). Please see the Talk page of the Dylan article. It includes all the info you'll need. Please someone take this, it's at a total stalemate. JDG 01:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noitall

Asking for assistance regarding Administrator Mustafaa:

Regarding the page and edits to Islamic Terrorism, Administrator Mustafaa acts as the police to this page to ensure that his biased POV is inserted. He was called in by Yuber to revert my edit, which was balanced, an improvement, and entirely without a POV (as are all my edits). They worked to team up to ensure that only their biased POV is inserted. Mustafaa then blocked me, in the process breaking many Wiki policies. Basically Mustafaa ‘s reactionary vandalism and his act of blocking me was an act of Wiki terrorisim.

Administrator Mustafaa broke many of Wiki policies:

1. Abuse of Administratorship: Most important is that Mustafaa has an obvious POV and abuses his Administratorship to ensure that his POV is inserted into his favorite articles.

2. Edit Abuse: Mustafaa (and Yuber) made a reactionary rv revert of the entire article instead of simply making one simple correction, the only correction that they disagreed with.

3. Edit Abuse: Unlike what they stated, there has been no previous discussion of this issue. The only previous discussion concerned their own sensitivity to the term. The term “Islamic Terrorism” is the term used by the West and it is the term being described. I provided a source (and there would be tens of thousands of sources, because this is the proper term in the West. I accurately described the dispute that some Muslims have over a term used in the West.

4. Violating blocking Policy: Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

5. Violating blocking Policy: logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block should not be blocked.

6. Violating blocking Policy: the 3RR policy is not to be used to deal with vandalism as mine was of Mustafaa and Yuber vandalism.

7. Violating blocking Policy: Mustafaa made no warnings, he just wanted to protect his POV.

I believe that I have made significant contributions to Wiki and I very greatly object to 2 people teaming up to block me out of the system so that they can insert their POV.

These people are doing a real disservice to Wiki, and I can think of no worse vandalism than they have done:

I think Administrators like Mustafaa are dangerous for Wiki, especially when they are so willing to violate Wiki policy to insert their POV.

So, I would appreciate any information and assistance you can provide to Noitall. Thank you.

--Noitall 03:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Have you considered discussing this issue with Mustafaa himself? - 131.211.210.11 10:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am requesting assistance in reference to a problem. We have been having a difficult time with one user. I have attempted to resolved the matter in the discussion area of this article and would like further advice and assistance.--Saujad 09:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There has recently been some debate regarding the naming conventions to be applied to articles on Plato's works. I came up with a scheme that seemed to be consistent within the works and Wikipedia naming guidelines, but encountered opposition mainly with one party. Unfortunately, my attempts to bring others into the discussion via the normal dispute resolution strategies have proven almost entirely fruitless. I decided we should put together a survey, since I figure that will be an even better way to bring in some much wanted consensus. Despite personally messaging all parties already involved in the discussion and giving several days, no one has responded at all to my messages, nor on the discussion page. I can't make a survey without agreement as to the survey content and format with the others in the discussion, as I understand it. Maybe I'm being railroaded with silence here, maybe they just truly either don't care anymore or haven't had time to respond (a few are pretty active editors, though), so basically I'm stuck in limbo here. I can't make the survey without input, and I can't go any further into dispute resolution without a survey, it seems. Any help or advice as to how to move the issue along would be welcomed. I'm happy to concede my point in the issue on the grounds of consensus, but until that happens, I see no reason to stand down on getting more opinions. Many thanks. --Girolamo Savonarola 23:56, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

For some sort of case (or not): A user (The truth about hephaestos/206.213.157.4) vandalized Hephaestos' talk page twice and I just reported him/her at Vandalism in Progress. I think the talk page needs to be protected (or whatever) if he/she does it again. I have also reported The truth about hephaestos at Vandalism in Progress about 2 weeks ago and I can see that he has been blocked permanently from the vandalism of Hephaestos' talk page and mine. I talked to the user (206.213.157.4) today about the vandalism of Hephaestos' talk page and tried to find out wether it is The truth about hephaestos or not. Thanks for any assistance you may be able to provide. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Wareware#AMA. Wareware currently has no representation. I'd rather someone else did it, since (among other reasons) IMO the case shouldn't have been accepted and neither party is either blameless, or deserving of anything stiffer than censure. Sam Spade 15:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting assistance in reference to a RfC that was opened on Wikipedia with respect to my account.

I believe the RfC, which inaccurately represents many of my actions, has been opened and supported in poor faith by a number of editors who have attempted to enforce a selective policy of prefixing styles to biographical entries, such as "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI" and "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II". There has been a survey in which their position was opposed as non-NPOV by a majority of those participating. I will provide a more detailed history of the controversy if desired to whomever may agree to assist me in defending myself. Whig 21:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a response to the RfC. Whig 09:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user keeps reverting the changes I've made to the Old English page, merely specifying that he "doesn't like" them. After the last time he did this, I posted a statement in the Talk page asking for comments and stating I would put my changes back if no one commented. No one commented, and eight days later I put them back; immediately Mr. Anonymous reverted again. This time he put something in the talk page, but it is still little more than "I don't like the changes".

I'm not sure quite what to do at this point.

Benwing 01:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A user (Silversmith) keeps redirecting all the albums by Skin Yard to the band page, repeatedly. I kept alterting (reverting) him/her when he/she did it and tried discussing this with the user on both of our talk pages. If you don't know more about this, answer here. Thanks for any assistance you may be able to provide. -- Mike Garcia | talk 14:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have requested discussion from the begining on the talk page of the article here. I redirected the album articles only once, then did not do so again to keep Mike happy. I have requested repeatedly that he discuss the issue with me, instead of just reverting edits I have made in good faith. My aim is to improve wikipedia, I'm not a vandal, and I have tried to work with Mike who just reverts without discussion. Please see My version in comparison with Mike Garcia's version. I also wrote the information on two of the albums myself, Inside the Eye and Skin Yard, and I have edited the article in a way that each album section has the same format and style. It is not too long, see any featured article by comparison. I am more than happy to discuss this further on my talk page, or the article's talk page. --Silversmith 17:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note Save Ferris, a band article which has all the albums on the one article. Mike has obviously spent a lot of time making album articles, but "ownership" is not a reason for reverting good faith edits.--Silversmith 17:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Mike has refused to enter into discussion regarding the Skin Yard article and has indulged in edit warring. He should soon be blocked as he reverted the article five times in 24 hours. Chameleon 17:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Spearhead have reverted edits to Death metal several times by 80.229.10.161 adding non-death metal bands and a band with two demos (which he created a tiny article for today). I tried leaving a comment in his talk page, but he keeps editing what I say and won't answer. -- Dysfunktion 19:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a revert war going on at the "Marla Ruzicka" article and I wish someone would do something about it. This is the lady who was recently blown up in Iraq. The article is a bit overly-reverential, but the real problem is that some of the users will not allow external links critical of Ruzicka's efforts to stand. -Gnossie

User nicknamed Ashley Y, with whom I have disagreed on certain other pages due to her opinions which I regard coming from some feministic bias, has removed all contents from the page cognatic succession, putting a redirect instead. The removed content is now available at the talk page Talk:Cognatic succession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cognatic_succession), and my grounds for the need of a separate page (= against a redirect) can be condensated in: primogeniture is not the only form of succession, there are several other methods, listed and presented in the removed text, and therefore the subject deserves an independent page.

This is obviously leading either to a revert war, or then Ashley Y getting factually incorrect and misleading contents to stay in Wikipedia.

I am very disappointed that she has not bothered to make improvements to the article, nor discuss (on its talk page) her intent to make a redirect and remove all contents. 62.78.105.140 16:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One example is here: [9] Users have been constantly revering my edits on any and almost every article I go. They interfere with my wikipedia experience and I cannot tolerate this anymore. Mediation request was filled an unanswered. I feel the way I am treated is unfair. They constantly revert my edits, have no troble going into revert wars with petty reasons, Kurdish people's history has plenty. I could list numerous such incidents. They will not stop constantly conflicting me. I've worked on dozens of articles and I am sick of waisting time on them. Also: [10] --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have they said anything that indicates that they're just disagreeing to disagree? Because on the surface of it, the first issue looks like a generic content dispute. I confess, I don't understand the second issue well enough to comment - could you provide some more background on the dispute? Snowspinner 13:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Users are "hunting me down" all over wikipedia interfereing with most of my conversation since I started working on Armenian Genocide, that wasnt a pleasant experience as discussion was more about me than anything [11]. My views and edits on that article are of course questionable by all parties involved in the conversation. Since then I had dificulty editing any artile. I wanted to for instance mediate the Nanjing Massacre, something not remotely related to Armenian Genocide. I was trying to develop mediation and NPOV aproach as I had no knowlege whatsoever regarding it. That was a comlpete faliure due to the interference of User:Fadix and User:Davenbelle, they did nont allow me to even begin mediating. There is the instance of Davenbelle's interference on Talk:Javier Solana. They declared Armenian Genocide as a fact. I do not know how factual the article is, one can easily say it is not remotely Neutral. Spelling corrections were reverted in that article as "POV vandalism". This is a 2 month dispute. The users have and are actively removing my edits from wikipedia in anyway they can. They declare official goverment statistics as POV because "Goverments tend to lie"[12]. If you go to user contributions [13] you will see user has been obsesed with my edits. I can ramble on all day. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating. User is even interfereing or trying to interfere with the article of mine I prize most, Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies[14], Like I said before users are bothering me just to bother me. Id apriciate any kind of help dealing with this matter as so far I had no to limmited help. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to say this, but I guess here is the best place. Coolcat has been a constant problem user. Many of his edits on the pages in question are quite biased. On talk pages, he resorts to personal attacks12 and threats12. Coolcat even goes so far as to deny the holocaust. The "spelling corrections" he talks about are things such as changing "concentration camp" to "relocation camp." Coolcat has also insulted myself and other wikipedians on IRC, then going on to claim he designed the internet and to again deny the holocaust, then say the holocaust happened, then deny it again:

[01:43] <Linuxbeak> Alright. In your Armenian Genocide article, you said you deny the holocaust.
[01:43] <Linuxbeak> Is this true?
[01:43] <Linuxbeak> AngryParsley specifically pointed this one out to me. I can certainly understand
 why he's got something against you, no offense meant.
[01:43] <Cool_Cat> I do not remeber denying anything
...
[01:45] <Cool_Cat> I was being sarcastic
[01:45] <Cool_Cat> Tehir claim was I was a denieler
...
[01:46] <Cool_Cat> I personaly think the Nazi goverment were in charge of mass murder yes
[01:46] <Linuxbeak> So the Holocaust happened?
[01:46] <Cool_Cat> I do not believe all germans are evil no
[01:46] <Cool_Cat> yeahit happened
...
[01:48] <Cool_Cat> no one is disputing Holocaust at either govermental, diplomatic or academic level
[01:48] <Cool_Cat> people however do dispute the armenian genocide
[01:48] <Cool_Cat> providing it as a solid fact at best conflicts NPoV
[01:48] <Cool_Cat> No one is denying people died, I am not at least
[01:48] <Cool_Cat> I am claiming it wasnt necesarily a goverment sposored exterimination plan

After that, the discussion devolves into incomprehensible ramblings about Michigan and genocide. These are only a couple of examples of Coolcat's misconduct. Many more were collected by Davenbelle here. In short, we're not disagreeing with him just to disagree. We're disagreeing with him because he denies the holocaust, insults others, edits with extreme bias (including changing statistics without citing any sources and using the edit summary "sneaky vandalism")1 AngryParsley 16:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bash me harder, HARDER. Either I am always wrong or you are a lowly troll. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ALthough I dont think anybody ever reads anything on this page another uniformed effort by the two users [15]. So conviniantly reverting same time. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[16]] 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)

If anyone here is really and passionately interested in a Wikipedia where one can rely on justice and due process, a Wikipedia where good editors can continue without fear of malicious prosecution before the ArbCom, then I could do with your help. I have an intensely logical and combative style and my intolerance of the pompous and the stupid has wound some unthinking and some pompous people up. Nevertheless, the RfAr in which I am embroiled should never have been admitted as a case by the ArbCom and its conduct has been and continues to be deeply unfair. What I am saying can perhaps be said better by someone less emotional than me. Many of the issues being addressed are of general application and are thus of importance to Wikipedia, not just to me. Leave a note on my Talk page. Thanks, Paul Beardsell 02:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) P.S. Snowspinner need not apply.

I've been engaged in a revert war on the page for the comic book character Wolverine. I expanded the section on his superhuman abilities, expanding the amount of detail on it, and citing sources for my statements, and I got into an argument with someone who asserted the character had superhuman strength. I eventually incorporated his/her arguments into my version, so as to reflect the disputed issue of his strength. But now I'm in a revert war with a number of users who don't like my version because, according to them, it's redundant, the issue should be vague, I'm only stating my opinions (untrue). They've approached this issue with an utter lack of civility, attacking me with Straw Men and insults, calling me a troll, accusing me of "vandalism," accusing me of deliberately trying to annoy them, etc. One user, ScifiterX just today posted a series of attacks on me on the Discussion page for that entry, telling others "what I think," accusing me of omitting important details, and has accused me of refusing to engage in discussion there (when in fact, the discussion there has only been going on for four days, before which I discussed this matter on our individual Talk pages). I just discovered the discussion there now, and posted a response there. I feel their attacks are unnecessary, as they seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them is guilty of starting a flame war, despite the fact that I have attempted to be civil and polite with them. They largely ignore my arguments, except to distort them. I worked hard on that section, and see no reason why it's too long or should be censored just because it apparently doesn't conform to their sense of aesthetics. Any viewing of my contributions will show that I have not engaged in vandalsim, and that my contributions were always made in good faith and sincerity, mostly consisting of minor edits for wording/NPOV, with some more lengthy contributions as the rarity. I apologize for having to trouble you, but I would appreciate intervention on this matter. Nightscream 7.12.05. 1:40am EST.

User:Michael Reiter has uploaded several pictures of actresses, such as Anne Archer. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, except each picture is only of the actress gagged and nothing else. He has inserted these pictures into the articles of the particular actresses, and I have removed the Anne Archer one (maybe that wasn't the right move to make?).

The thing is, I feel that this man is simply flaunting a fetish of his rather than adding relevant material. Anne Archer and other actresses have done far more work than merely being gagged, and seeing pictures of such in their articles where a more representative picture (or more diverse set of pictures) would do, does not seem appropriate to me. I simply get the strong impression that this man is merely flaunting his interest in gagged women rather than intending to fairly represent the actresses in question.

What should be done about this?

CGally81 22:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Responded to user, believe this will go to closed quickly. --Wgfinley 03:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've recently opened an RFC on RickK, and he "refuses to dignify this nonsense with a response." I guess I'm also very concerned that RFC is effectively a popularity contest (outside view 1 has no place IMO). I guess I'd like some help with deciding what to do now, and how if possible to force RickK to follow policy. Thanks. --SPUI (talk) 21:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Responded to user. --Wgfinley 03:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recently had a biased contribution on autism rights movement and I'm not sure how well I handled that. From what I read of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, POV contributions can't be deleted just because they are biased, except in extreme cases. I tried my best with this contribution, but parts of it I couldn't NPOVize. I did leave the whole contribution on the talk page. In addition, a lot of that person's contribution was not appropriate to the article. I tried moving some of it to other articles, and I created a new article for part of it. I was very worried when I saw the biased contribution that it would cause people to delete more than was necessary, or provoke a VFD nomination, so I couldn't let it stay there. On the other hand, I think the contribution was interesting and thought-out so I hate deleting it. It was contributed by an anonymous user, and I suspect it was a newbie who was unfamiliar with NPOV policy. I would like someone to help me deal with this issue. Also, I would like to point out something that there is heated disagreement of with respect to autism: most autistic people do not see autism as a disorder but as a way of being, and I think it is important for any potential advocates to know of that ahead of time. Q0 07:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should say I created a new article for the biased contribution Aaron Rosanoff, and moved a lot of it to that article, since it is more appropriate there.Q0 07:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replied to user, will update on status. --Wgfinley 18:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? I found another problem around here! A user (69.168.163.125) continues to remove "Nu metal or not", which is the section of System of a Down. This wasn't the same user that kept re-writing my non-version of Bleed Like Me. Feel to answer me here. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replied to user, appears situation has settled, will update after contact. --Wgfinley 20:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is supposedly an article describing a right wing party in Flanders (Belgium), called Flemish Interest, yet it resembles more a personal blog of just one user, who is patently biased in favour of this particular right wing party. This user sits on the article like a goose on her eggs. I have tried making several changes, but these were always changed back to the personal rant of JvB. This article is absolutely no longer an encyclopedic article, neutrally describing the party, its members, programme, voters, main policies, history etc... Basically I propose to create a guideline / template on how to write an article describing political parties in order to reduce NPOV disputes. Any suggestions?

Need some contact information, be sure to sign your requests. --Wgfinley 20:43, 17 Apr 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)

I'm an AA player so would be happy to help but some contact info is needed. --Wgfinley 20:30, 17 Apr 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.

Need some contact information if you are looking for an advocate. --Wgfinley 20:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(original title indicated direct link to [17] - 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)

Initiated contact, will update after response. --Wgfinley 20:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some users (Cassius987 and Johnnyw) both continue editing part of a band called Tool by un-re-adding Teleincision on the discography section, which is the rumoured title of their upcoming release that has never been widely confirmed. I was going to discuss this with both of the users on both of our talk pages, including the talk page of the band. The other user (Johnnyw) removed the leakage information when I added sources like this: [18], [19] and [20] and then started reverting some edits, then I tried to re-add them as well. Thanks for any assistance you may be able to provide. -- Mike Garcia | talk 13:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I'd in principle be happy to help, I think it's probably best if you take issues like this to Danny. Snowspinner 14:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there have been several comments by Cassius987, MrHate and myself regarding this subject on Talk:Tool (band) (8 comments total). Your first and only post on that page was on 5 Jun. I would welcome you to resume this discussion on the talk page. ---Johnnyw

This request is inappropriate, like the last several this user has made. I have replied and asked him to discuss his problem with others before coming to us, as well as refraining from further requests for the time being. Wally 21:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to ask for assistance.

There has been an ongoing, bitter, dispute between me and two "administrators" who have sought to selectively edit an entry on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Tribune-Review).

Earlier versions of the encyclopedia entry included patently offensive, erroneous and frankly libelous contentions, including the malicious lie that the newspaper had called the wife of a prominent presidential candidate a "lesbian."

This aside was created by a user called Gamaliel, and supported, for a time, by another user called Willcmw.

A review of their collaboration can be found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_3.

A mediator did arrive, long after I requested one, and long after I had worn down the others, dissuading them from printing erroneous, unlawful and unreferenced material.

While the material disappeared, thankfully, from the main entry, it continued to appear in the Discussion section, and the incorrect info continued to be retrieved by Internet search engines.

While I agree that it is generally important to maintain disputed material in archive form, this likely shouldn't apply to words that are malicious, offensive or libelous.

I would most appreciate someone taking care of this.

At 1644 EST (USA), I removed all of the disputed material at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pittsburgh_Tribune-Review, only to see Gamaliel continue to replace it.

I feel this is vandalism.

Wasn't this issue just resolved? What's driving the re-post?KC9CQJ 02:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Answered this anon user on their talk page, suggested registering and contacting advocates accepting inquiries directly if they don't want to register. --Wgfinley 03:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the same editor, using the email account of Carl Prine, an investigative reporter at the Tribune Review, sent this same message to user:David Gerard who, in turn, reposted it here:[21]. Also, a check of the talk page archives shows that the only references to Teresa Heinz Kerry being a lesbian, which is the issue that he is concerned with, are those made by this editor himself. Lastly, it should be noted that the editor has been highly disingenuous about his identity, volunteering false information. Nobody disputes the right of editors to participate anonymously, but they should not pretend to be other than they are, and they should probably not participate in editing descriptions of their work without disclosing their identity (assuming that the anon is, in fact, Carl Prine). Cheers, -Willmcw 06:51, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've pulled out some of the more notable comments from this editor and posted them, temporarily, on User:Willmcw/sandbox. In many of them he implictly threatens legal action against Wikipedia, and in others he writes as if he had no connection to the newspaper and no special knowledge of Carl Prine. (the more I dug up about Prine, the more I realized... [that]...the vast majority of the evidence seems to point to the fact that Prine is a pretty damned good newsman). I had previously assumed that his editor was some mid-level business exec at the paper and I'm frankly astonished that he appears to be Prine himself. -Willmcw 07:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

According to this email [22] on the Wikien-l system, Prine says that he is simply communicating on behalf of another employee of the same newspaper. That still leaves questions as to why the editor has pretended to be unaffiliated with the newspaper and to be ignorant of Prine. -Willmcw 00:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw -- this really isn't a place for investigation into people's claims, it's for people to get the services of an advocate if they so desire. I've tried to contact this person and see if they desire such a service, let's leave it at that. Discussions and debate from other pages don't need to be brought here, it's not the purpose of this page. --Wgfinley 01:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It'd help if this editor had a stable identity. Anyway, best of luck. Thanks for taking on the job. -Willmcw 04:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. My name is Carl Prine. I am a reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. I did, in fact, intervene in a matter that involved an unpaid university editorial assistant, an intern who was using her experience copy editing two entries, including the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article, for her graduate thesis.

She does not have an email account here. She does not have her own computer. She did these revisions during her spare time in a pooled research library near our desk, a spot with several computers. She also helps out at another newspaper outside of our chain. I cannot speak about any revisions she has completed from computers outside of the Tribune-Review.

I mentor at several colleges in the area, and encourage them to make use of the Internet, but to be skeptical of much of the information appearing on the web. The person in question became exasperated at both the falsehoods expressed in the PTR article and the attitudes of the "administrators" who sought to "correct" her. When she was blocked, for the first time I ventured into the Wikipedia world.

Again, she is not a paid employee of this newspaper. Her role here is informal, and I know her only in a cursory way. I am not her professor, student newspaper editor or her college advisor.

I have created a user name and have posted my thoughts from both the library pool and my own desk. I also have forwarded privately to top Wikipedia administrators the offsite email address of the intern so that they can communicate with her directly. She is concerned that Willmcw and Gamaliel (I hope I have those names spelled correctly) will attack her in her private life.

From the level of their discourse, and their actions, I recently have reviewed, I don't blame her. I don't much care for bullies, and I don't mind wading into the controversy. I have given my name, email address and direct telephone line to senior administrators so that they know exactly who I am, my recent involvement in this matter, and what I intend to do to make sure this woman is treated fairly.

I should like to add that the PTR entry continues to use my name in ways I, personally, believe are irrelevant or misleading. I have not changed these because it would be unethical, I believe, to do so. I shall leave to future revisers the task of deciding the importance of some brief television work I did, or the sorts of awards I have won, to the history of the newspaper chain. Had I written the thing, my name would not have appeared at all.

Perhaps this is why I do not appreciate these snide, uninformed comments about me, shown both on this page and on other parts of Wikipedia related to this controversy.

I have not changed, or even read, any comments in these pages about me personally until recently. Now that I have read them, however, it should be noted that they are simply wrong, and the intern did the right thing by erasing them. It's also why I have taken a very personal interest in this matter and agreed to post the complaint because she was blocked and couldn't do so.

In my very short time in these forums, it appears that some "administrators" appear to write untruths, based on scant evidence, to discredit organizations, businesses or people they don't like. When a young woman calls them on it, using the rudiments of her journalism education, they attack her, then silence her.

Then I see that they attribute untrue things about me, a person they do not know. While I believe Wikipedia can be a valuable tool, it seems equally rife with problems, and perhaps the senior levels of the effort should review who is trusted to edit many of these entries.

That someone is now suggesting a young intern called the wife of a presidential candidate a "lesbian," instead of one of the "administrators" who silenced her is indicative, I believe, of a larger problem. I have made my own suggestions to those higher in the chain of command here about this issue.

In the meantime, I have cautioned her to simply file any new revisions from her home computer. The entire matter seems to have been resolved, and my role in this will only be that of monitor.

Further correspondence may be directed to me at cprine@tribweb.com.

Lionel of Pittsburgh 15:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)Lionel of Pittsburgh

If this anon user wishes to participate in the Wikipedia project then she needs follow the same norms of behavior as any other editor. As with the previous request, I again second the request for a mediator to resolve the differences between her and the other editors. Among other things, threats of legal action and repeated lies about her affiliation with the article subject make it difficult to assume good faith on her part. The matter is not resolved if the anon user keeps popping up and making demands. -Willmcw 20:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sent an email to the contact for follow-up. Please stop the debate of this issue, this is not the place for it. --Wgfinley 20:31, 25 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." [23]. 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)

The Gigantour article was nominated for speedy deletion by Shoefly because it was apparently self-promotion and advertisement. Not only are these not part of the criteria for speedy deletion, but they are also incorrect. I don't believe Shoefly read the article's Talk page, which had a discussion on the advertorial nature of the article, and it was explained that the original author of the article (me) was not affiliated with the tour and therefore it cannot possibly be self-promotion. I think that if anything were to be done about the article, it should have been listed on VfD, not speedy deletion. I have asked for an explanation on Shoefly's talk page, but he hasn't replied.

I would like to know who actually deleted the article, why they decided it was speedy deletion worthy, and how I can get it undeleted. I would also like to know why people can get an article deleted without a trace without even so much as a minor concensus. I think it's inappropriate given the article was about as promotional as Big Day Out or Lollapolooza. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^{is this thing on?} 16:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

It was deleted by Mel Etis. I'll list it on Wikipedia:Votes for Undeletion, which is the proper procedure for these things. Snowspinner 20:48, Apr 10, 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)

Options for resolution sent to user, moving request to here until resolved. KC9CQJ 03:11, 12 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)

I am going to be leaving wikipedia but I wrote an article on wikipedia that I am not happy with. I think only one other user has edited it, and it was for the most part, a minor edit. I would like it to be speedy deleted, but I don't want to draw attention to it. I'd like it if someone (hopefully a sysop) could help me explain how or if I can speedy delete it. I don't want to say which article in public because, as I say, I don't want to draw attention to it. Also, I would like it if someone could reply to me in e-mail, since I am leaving wikipedia but want to do this last thing first. Q0 23:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I should be a little more clear with my request. I created an article a while back that I regret making. It is not that there is anything "bad" about it, just that it is a highly controversial topic and I am uncomfortable with it. I read in wikipedia's speedy deletions policy, "Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author." I don't know if my situation qualifies as a "mistake" by the original author. This is what I would like help with: I would like to know if it qualifies as a mistake or not for speedy deletion and I'm not sure who to ask. I worry about putting a speedy deletion tag that it might draw attention to what I am uncomfortable with. I would not mind at all if someone else wrote an article about the same topic. I would not even mind if they used what I already wrote. I think I am most uncomfortable about my name appearing in the history window for such a controversial topic. Q0 11:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replying to this user. Wally 20:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo keeps removing the VFD notice from an article he created. He contends that to nominate his article for VFD is a "misapplication" of the deletion policy, and cites this as his reason for removing the tag. The entire point of VfD is to get consensus from a number of users on how the deletion policy should apply to an article; Stevertigo is claiming instead that because his interpretation of the deletion policy is that it shouldn't be deleted, it entitles him to unilaterally make a "keep" decision and end the discussion. His intransigence on this issue can be seen by this edit to my User talk page, just after removing the VFD tag for the third time, stating "I have again removed it. Take it to WP:RFAr." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Iraq occupation mistakes

User:Antaeus 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 supercedes 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)

As a general rule, deletion notices can be added by anyone, and they're allowed to stay. I've seen much worse faith deletions stay and go through VfD. Your best bet is probably to go to the VfD page and explain why the page should be kept. Snowspinner 22:10, Apr 9, 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)

Several weeks ago I filed an ArbCom case against Instantnood that went nowhere. This weekend jguk initiated his own, which I know I will be dragged into. With that expectation, I suppose I need an advocate. SchmuckyTheCat 19:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm already handling jguk's request. Unless there's a huge difference in what you and he want out of the case, there's no particular reason not to take them together. Snowspinner 20:01, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Having gotten thoroughly frustrated at Instantnood's constant attempts to change articles, categories, and templates against majority opinion, I have enjoined myself to the ArbCom request on his behaviour. I would welcome a representative to help me, where necessary. In particular in compiling compelling evidence for the ArbCom - eg what do they like to see?

I would like a representative over the age of 21, say - but other than that, do not mind who, and would be grateful for assistance, jguk 13:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Happy to help here. Snowspinner 02:41, Apr 10, 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 have accepted advocacy on behalf of User:Instantnood. Messages to my talk page. Wally 21:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wally and I will be co-advocating for this user, see below. --Wgfinley 23:46, 10 Apr 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)

Proceeded to arbitration — I have agreed to advocate for this user. Wally 21:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wally and I will be serving as co-advocates for this user based on his request and agreement with Wally. --Wgfinley 23:45, 10 Apr 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)

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)

Answered and dormant, moved to close. --Wgfinley 19:23, 18 Apr 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 [24]. 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)

Answered and dormant, moved to closed. --Wgfinley 19:23, 18 Apr 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)

Answered and resolved, moved to closed. --Wgfinley 19:23, 18 Apr 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)

Answered and resolved, moved to closed. --Wgfinley 19:23, 18 Apr 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]

Answered and dormant to the point of mold, moved to closed. --Wgfinley 19:23, 18 Apr 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)

Answered and dormant, moving to closed. --Wgfinley 19:15, 18 Apr 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)

Answered and dormant, moving to closed. --Wgfinley 19:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The last user who vandalizes the page needs to be banned or blocked, as I said on one of those pages: [25], [26] and [27]. -- 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)

Matter for the moment held, pending efforts to alleviate the situation. No action taken, as requested by User:Danny and User:Tony Sidaway. Mike's request inappropriate for AMA involvement (we don't handle ban/block requests, and the issue has already been dispensed with on those pages). Wally 21:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moved as per above. Wally 21:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Answered and appears resolved, moving to closed. --Wgfinley 19:15, 18 Apr 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. [28]. "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. [29]

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)

Given the the fact that the original requester has withdrawn his request, and since there have been no new disputes, I suggest that this matter be moved to the "Closed" section. -Willmcw 22:38, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agree, moved to closed. --Wgfinley 19:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a side issue that should be resolved. I discovered that search engines routinely will pull up the erroneous, libelous and frankly offensive material that was once ginned up about the Tribune-Review. Only this time it appears in the "Discussion" section.

I have sought to remove what wasn't good enough for primetime from the "backdoor" of the discussion page, but an administrator named Gamaliel, who has agreed to "tag team" me on these issues with Willmcw (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_3).

I'm not sure how one can "tag team" a knowledgeable source into advocating what is wrong, instead of what is right, but perhaps an outsider can decide?

See your talk page, it's really tough to help you if you insist on being anon. Hard for an advocate to contact you can get some info, ageement on how to proceed, etc. --Wgfinley 03:08, 19 Apr 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)

Case decided, moved to closed. --Wgfinley 19:15, 18 Apr 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)

Answered and dormant, moved to closed. --Wgfinley 19:15, 18 Apr 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)

Answered and dormant, moved to closed. --Wgfinley 19:15, 18 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)

Answered and dormant, moved to closed. --Wgfinley 19:05, 18 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)

Initiated contact, will update with status. --Wgfinley 20:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User replied adding situation had stabilized, will contact if needed. Move to closed. --Wgfinley 19:00, 18 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)

Coached user some on how to properly address this issue, no follow up from user since. Moving to closed. --Wgfinley 20:54, 17 Apr 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)

Case is in decision process, after repeated contact requests member never responded but continued editing on his case page, this forced me to withdraw. Case closed, member does not appear to desire an advocate. --Wgfinley 20:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For older requests, see Archives: 1 2