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.

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.

In the last few days, I have updated the Scope section of the science fiction article, the speculative fiction article, and portions of some related articles to bring them up to date with current thinking in SF critical theory. I am qualified to do this, being a long-time fan and scholar of SF who has written well-received essays on it. These changes (notably my rewrite of the Scope section) received some positive feedback. I do not believe any of them are tendentious, and I have adhered strictly to NPOV.

User:KennyLucius has been running around after me reverting my changes without offering edits. He has annotated my work as "vandalism" and "ridiculous" without explanation. He is behaving as though he believes he owns these articles.

I believe he is in violation of several Wikipedia norms. I am resisting the temptation to get into an edit war, but I am at a loss about what to do next. I am new to Wikipedia and do not know the correct form for coping with obnoxious territorial behavior. Esr 19:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm accepting this if Esr still needs help. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...And Kurt Weber already beat me. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 17:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

I would like help dealing with some administrators and also with the Arbitration Committee. I was involved in a dispute with an admin on the Intelligent Design talk page. I acted out of order, violating the 3RR unintentionally (I thought it was a day, not 24h) and I was acting confrontational and made a personal attack (telling an admin to "Get a grip"). The admin I was having a dispute with blocked me, and I filed a RfA [1]. I believe he, and others, are acting as owner of the article. Right after that, the admin filed an RfC against me, even though I had already asked him to participate in an RfC (against him though), and even used this as an example of how I had tried to resolve the dispute. The majority of their accusations seem to me to be heavily spun just to cast me in a bad light. They make very libelous accusations about me and whenever I defend myself they say it is a personal attack. They rely on people not examining the issue closely enough. It seems whatever I say is called a personal attack and I am having a very difficult time expressing my point of view. If, for example, I say they are spinning things they will call this too a personal attack. Another administrator also keeps posting on my talk page telling me not to make "personal attacks." The RfC at this point though has basically stalled and the person who filed it against me does not really seem that interested in pursuing it, mainly interested in spinning anything I say to defend myself into a personal attack and just adding it. The thing is, there are votes on my RfA that are "reject until RfC is concluded" or "reject until other dispute resolution is pursued". So, until the rfc is "concluded" I can't file my RfA. Another problem is with some of the votes on my RfA (currently 2 Accept, 1 reject until RfC is concluded, 1 reject until other resolution is tried, and 4 rejects). One of the votes is "Reject with great prejudice. One need only take a cursory look at Talk:Intelligent design to see that FeloniousMonk's actions are EXACTLY what we expect our admins to do." with one concurring. I named three administrators in my RfA. One of the administrators, right in his statement to ArbCom, said very rude things and in no uncertain terms violated No Personal Attacks (calling me a lowly troll, a pathetic individual, etc.), yet two of the Arbitrators seem to think this is "exactly what we expect our admins to do." The admins are very rude and are so set against me that they will grab at anything I say or do and some members of ArbCom are condoning this behavior. I think they are very biased and have fallen into confirmation bias. They seem to think the article is NPOV, and therefore anyone who criticizes it is, in one of their words "the latest in the long line of religiously-inspired creationist POV warriors." I think maybe it is a bad case of group think. All I want to do is make the topic easier to understand so there will be less disputes on the talk page (there is at least one major dispute over POV and content per day on that page). Personally I am a weak agnostic, I think evolutionary theory is sound and scientific, and that creationism is an interesting allegory, but I cannot disabuse them of this notion that I am a some sort of creationist propagandist. I really think the article needs help and could benefit from some wide changes but they dismiss this out of hand.

What would you like from the AMA

For an AMA to intervene on my behalf to stop the libelous accusations and advise me on how to proceed with my RfA, and how to deal with this situation. I am not interested in someone simply arguing their perspective for them. I am interested in help defending myself against what I see is a campaign of harassment. This is very frustrating. Please someone help. There are quite a few people, a few admins included, where it seems all they want to do is basically stand on my windpipe because they are so upset by vandals or something. I really don't know. This is very confusing, and I think they even like it when I am confused by what they say. I even put a poll on the RfC page to suggest concluding the RfC. I signed that I support closing the RfC. The admin who filed the RfC against me? He just changed the heading and didn't sign anything. Please help. --Ben 00:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the RfA I filed [2], and the RfC the admin filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Benapgar | talk --Ben 01:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a requirement, and probably discriminatory in nature on my part, I would prefer an advocate who is gay and/or Jewish due to the nature of the particular issue. I can be reached via my talkpage, on AIM at ichiupsidedown, on icq at 97325293, on g-mail aswell: node dot ue at gmail dot com. I do have a cellular phone, and depending on how serious things get I may or may not be willing to give my #. --Node 23:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

Ongoing edit war over the existence of JT Leroy. Well researched recent NY Magazine article puts forth compelling evidence this is a scam/hoax with Leroy actually the fabrication of a woman named Laura. Whenever someone tries to write this up with citations in a neutral POV, someone (presumably? possibly?) associated with Laura reverts the entry. These reverts feature Original Research in the form of assertions by the editor that he knows JT quite well. JT's offical bio is presented as fact without citation instead of as "his" official bio with a relevant citation. The article reverts to a constant use of the word "he" to describe the author. Instead of presenting citations to evidence that Leroy exists, an attack is made on the author of the magazine's motives, an ad hominem with no citation, no basis in fact, and no relevance to a logical evaluation of the evidence presented in his article.

What would you like from the AMA?

Please get involved as those of us who are trying to follow the guidelines have little energy to expend on this whereas those who benefit from this fraud have enough of an investment to revert forever. A non-involved individual having neither belief in the existence or lack of existence of JT Leroy, nor detailed knowledge of the information regarding this controversy, to become involved, and work towards maintaing the guidelines of no orginal research, civility, verifiability and neutral point of view. Someone as equally committed to the guidelines as whoever keeps reverting is to keeping the hoax of Leroy alive.

thank you.

Who's involved?

FDuffy, Kwamikagami, IZAK, Jayjg, Jfdwolff, and other minor parties only vaguely involved.

What's going on?

POV issues. IZAK, Jayjg, et. al. (about 2 others) dispute the validity of inclusion of information deriving from non-religious sources, such as academic sources (including from sources that are themselves religious, but approach the subject from an academic point of view).

In particular they dispute the inclusion of information involving the documentary hypothesis, a theory supported by over 90% of the academic community in the field of bible studies (including, surprisingly, the vatican), which by its very nature, has something significant, and individual, to say about virtually every torah related subject.

It should be noted that a major, pro-jewish-pov, encyclopedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, includes this information in many articles, despite its POV, and despite the fact that when it was written (100 years ago), the hypothesis was fairly new, and produced much less information than it does now.

FDuffy has repeatedly cited his sources - Richard Elliott Friedman, Martin Noth, the Jewish Encyclopedia itself, Israel Finkelstein, and more minor sources. IZAK, Jayjg, et. al. have repeatedly claimed that FDuffy must provide sources, despite FDuffy doing so.

See also User talk:FDuffy

What would you like from the AMA?

FDuffy (and probably kwami) would like a non-involved individual having neither the views of IZAK, Jayjg, et.al, nor detailed knowledge of the information from the academic community, to become involved, and assist FDuffy's assertion that NPOV requires that fact that certain information is the majority view of the academic community should be respected, and included in articles.

--User talk:FDuffy 10:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Francis does indeed give his sources: some names. Never on the article page itself but in edit summaries and on talk pages. And never with a book title, let alone page number. That's annoying, especially after requesting this information several times.

Presently Wikipedia contains a fair bit of "pro-Jewish-POV" material, because there have been a number of Jewish contributors around who have kindly contributed this information long before Francis arrived. There is no problem with inserting "academic viewpoints", but there is a problem when this distinction is not discernible. An example: academics believe the traditional Ten Commandments were predated by an older set of ten instructions that is found in Exodus 34; this is termed the Ritual Decalogue. Francis insisted on making Ten Commandments a disambiguation page between the "Ethical Decalogue" (what the whole world knows as the Ten Commandments) and the Ritual Decalogue, even though these subjects vary greatly in prominence.

On 613 mitzvot he has insisted on pushing a colour-coding scheme to facilitate the attribution of each commandments to each of the "proto-sources" of the JEDPR hypothesis. This colour-coding is considered by myself and several others as intrusive and pushing a POV, yet Francis insists on reverting to his version without any compromise[3].

I value Francis' contributions to the Torah-related articles, and wish there could be a somewhat more open discussion about the merits of all POVs, but I also wish he would have a closer read of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and to understand that the Torah to several contributors is indeed sacred. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FDuffy objects to JDW butting in to what is meant to be a request by FDuffy alone. --User talk:FDuffy 22:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Francis, your "request" suggests that you are being targeted because you hold an unpopular POV. This is not true. It is because you ignore NPOV and NOR in your editing. JFW | T@lk 08:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly in the past tried to hold admins subject to the rules like the rest of us. Recently, User:Ryan Delaney reverted with his protection of Criticisms of communism, a move which while an admitted violation is apparently popular and my attempts to get this violation corrected are both mocked and attacked. I have initiated an RfC of doubtful correctness in form, although I believe it to be correct in spirit.[4]. I need an advocate to help also make it correct in form. I have purposely been a loner and not participated in any coalitions and cabals, because I think as a matter of principle one should be able to both edit and get justice on the merits and not by smoozing, lobbying or conspiracy. I know I am taking the hard road by doing this. I also purposely don't sugar coat my analyses and others have considered this abrasive. I also am persistent unless someone shows on the merits that I am not right, and people don't like to be shown up, so I guess I have made enemies among the intellectually insecure and hypocritical. In any case, this means that I don't even have someone else to certify, although I have asked Ryan Delaney to do so, since he admitted the violating the letter if not the spirit of the policy. So, I need advocate assistance, not merely on the process, but also to certify the dispute. Please assist. -- thanx, --Silverback 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been blocked by breaking the 3RR. It was right since I actually did it, but I'd like to get help for not being blocked again. IMHO, Gibraltarian is trying to impose his own POV as it were the NPOV in three different articles: Spain, Disputed status of Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar. As I could be also biased myself, I'd like to get assistance to request some sort of arbitration. Thank you --Ecemaml 10:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm becoming excessively frustrated because I'm finding that regardless of the quality or helpfulness of the resources posted, I'm finding all edits removed. The User S.K. has accused us of "notorious spam" which is simply not the case. We have posted links to a variety of useful resources many of which we have no affiliation, regardless we find it removed. What do I do from here? (Thank you in advance for suggestions) 1 November 2005

I need advice on how to put a stop someone from using Wikipedia to continue his campaign of defamation against my colleagues and me. Although I've contributed some material to the Natasha Demkina entry, I don't know many of the rules and procedures here, especially about what can be done to stop the posting of demonstrably false and defamatory material. Please see my complaint in Talk:Natasha Demkina Thank you, Andrew Skolnick (e-mail@aaskolnick.com) (posted by User:64.65.247.81)

I have tried to manage this issue, but poor response from WP:RFC and my attempts to bring the content dispute to NPOV have not generated satisfaction. It could use another set of eyes. Or perhaps new ones. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look Keith, I think this one is a powder keg and that cooler heads need to prevail on both sides, appears some inflammatory remarks have been thrown out a bit. Things seem to have stabilized in the past two weeks so I'm moving this to answered but can assist if more help is needed. --Wgfinley 04:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new at Wiki, but if what is going on at the Talk:John Lott page is any example, this grand social experiment has serious problems. I see someone else complained about this page last summer.

I was accused of not being me a user within two hours of my first post. Look at my user profile to see the evidence: Cbaus

After reading the long discussion page history and learning what a sockpuppet is (that's what they were calling me), I told these bullies there that there was no more reason to suspect me of not being me than there was for me to suspect them of being sockpuppets for a man who is known across the world for trying to discredit John Lott.

Today I see that they tried to delete that entire exchange from the discussion page! Check the history of discussion, because I'm sure they'll do it again.

It is not right that a few people should be allowed to gang up on and refuse to work with others. It is clear that their effort here is to hurt John Lott's reputation, not to present a balanced article. The history of this goes back months and months and months. They just do it until people give up fighting them and go away.

If this is what this website is all about, it is shameful. If it is not, then I really wish someone would do something about it.---Cbaus - December 21, 2005 5:11 p.m. EDST USA

What exactly would you like an AMA member to do in this case?Gator (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that someone impartial could go there are help get some fairness restored. They don't even accept my status as an actual person. It is how they treat anyone who goes there - I did a quick scan and found at least seven different people whose proposals for the article were cast off simply by accusing the person of being not a real person. No matter what they do on the main article page, I have no idea how this little gang can possibly justify censoring the discussion page, and yet they continually do this. They have edited out much of someone else named Al Lowe's extensive discussions and whatever else they find inconvenient they have moved to another archived discussion page. Whatever is going on there certainly doesn't appear to be in keeping with what Wikipedia is purported to be all about.---Cbaus - December 22, 2005 2:46 p.m. EDST USA

Left message on user's talk page. I reviewed a lot of the exchange and will update on status. --Wgfinley 04:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others and especially Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Sam_Spade_placed_on_Probation. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. The quicker the better, the way things are looking there might not be much time. Sam Spade 04:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've known Sam a while and have left him a message on his talk page. --Wgfinley 04:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My case has ended, but I have thanked Wgfinley for his offer, and fully intend to take advantage of it if it again becomes necessary. Sam Spade 17:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

The Arbitration Committee is being completely unreasonable with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy, having closed the request after only one member of the committee attempted to address it. Gavin the Chosen has been blocked for the duration of the request and unable to edit the request pages. The committee has failed to communicate regarding their expectations and the sufficiency of the material provided. The effort of the sole contributing arbiter (Fred Bauder) has been marginalized by the committee members who voted to close over his opposition. The clearly existing problems made evident by the request remain unresolved.

Additionally, my objection to the closure of this request has been removed from RFAR by Raul654, which gives a strong impression that the committee is uninterested in fairness. Please help, the situation is not improving.

What would you like from the AMA?

I need help to get this problem properly and fairly addressed, as I currently have neither the energy nor capacity for stress needed to pursue this very much farther. The Arbitration Committee must address the evidence provided and the contributions to the case by Fred Bauder, and allow Gavin the Chosen to comment on the case before it can be completed. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 13:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to this user, no way for us to force the Arbcom to make a decision on a case, they didn't have the votes. Willing to help with the issue though, message left on talk page. --Wgfinley 04:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The [Truthroom.com] website does not make false accusations but rather presents research based on bibical prophecy. The Hashemite Kingdom is a major player in end time prophecy. This is not the opinion of Truthroom is is the conclusion of many researchers. The information is interesting and does not speak negatively or disrespectful. If some are offended that is ok, but continuing to censor this information should not be tolorated. Wikipedia allows external links I have posted the rule below. Please stop people like cyborg from censoring information that is well researched and well footnoted. [dicussion]

====External links are certainly allowed.==== Properly used, they increase the usability of Wikipedia. Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a web directory; external links should support the content of the article, not replace it. An article should be more than a container for external links, and the content should not require the reader to leave the site to understand the subject. Please do not place advertising links in Wikipedia. Commercial sites are obvious, but this prohibition usually includes links to fansites and discussion forums as well unless the site is a notable one in the field. As a general rule of thumb: if you wish to place the link in Wikipedia in order to drive traffic to a site, it probably doesn't belong here. The current convention is to place external links in a separate "External links" section at the bottom of the article. Sites used as references for the article should be listed under a "References" section, or sometimes placed within the article as a footnote. See Wikipedia:How does one edit a page for different ways to create external links.

I have been constantly removing the external link to the website Truthroom.com, which claims to contain factual information concerning King Abdullah II and the Hashemites in biblical prophecy. I have removed the links on the bases that the information contained in the website is speculative. The user posting the material believes otherwise. Aside from on the user's page(s), I have posted my disagreement at Talk:Abdullah II of Jordan. - Cybjorg 10:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at this, first, it's going to be near impossible to help you with an advocacy request as an anonymous user, I'd suggest either creating and account or emailing an AMA member directly. Check out the Member Statements Page to find one you would be interested in working with.

And Cybjorg this isn't a place to carry the debate from the page to another forum, if you would like an advocate please make a separate request but don't continue the debate here.

--Wgfinley 04:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We had a massive attack on the Answers in Genesis page today. I'm desperately looking for guidance here. Can someone step forward? Please contact me on my user page and I'll give you the full story. Answers in Genesis is a "difficult" page which deals with many controversial issues on the borderlands between science and religion. Thanks in advance (If this is the wrong place for my request, please let me know) Christianjb 00:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a little more information. I have been trying very hard to deal with a creationist movement in a fair way. I have tried to let their theology speak for itself. I am a professional scientist, so I have also been pointing out cases where this movement makes statements that would be contested by mainstream science (without claiming that mainstream science is the superior methodology).

Today we had several edits in the space of around an hour by an anonymous user who removed around 50% of the article (mostly parts that appeared criticial of the movement). We asked to move the discussion to the talk page, which resulted in the anonymous user writing (what I consider to be) insults over various places throughout the discussions. I was accused of being highly NPOV and being ignorant, which I found quite upsetting given the hard work I've put into sourcing my statements to make sure they properly represent the Answers in Genesis group.

I have decided to come here. I don't want to get into an edit war in which we each revert eachother's edits. I consider the actions of the anonymous editor to be close to vandalism in her/his disregard for the laws of etiquette. Ideally I would like today's edits reverted and a temporary freeze placed on the edits. Most of all though I need some guidance. Christianjb 00:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminar answer to user. --Neigel von Teighen 19:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two anons (User:68.161.133.116 and User:151.196.122.184 plus related IPs) have gotten into edit wars with established editors who should know better. It degenerated to very poor behavior on both sides, resulting in blocks and page protections. One of the anons (68.161.x.x) has requested my help. Because of Xmas, my time is limited right now. Any help from an additional AMA member would be fine. --A D Monroe III 22:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anons were adding unsourced fan speculation, and flatly denying that Wikipedia rules forbid this even when being shown the policy page. They degenerated into crass vandalism, at which point I protected the pages from anonymous editing. Straightforward and by the numbers. Phil Sandifer 23:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an admin issue and has been addressed, moving to closed. Thanks Snow. --Wgfinley 23:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think I was one of the people the anons were complaining about, so you may not want to let me be the person who drives it to close. Phil Sandifer 23:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user (or perhaps multiple, all from from 71.x.x.x) has/have been posting speculation about a third-generation Nintendo handheld to the Game Boy article [5] [6] [7]. I've reverted it twice, and before I break 3RR, I'd like some advice. Posting something to a User Talk page seems like it won't accomplish much if the user continues to be on a dynamic IP. There has been some brief discussion on the talk page about this topic, but the user in question has not contributed. One previous attempt to improve the speculation to something less speculative ([8]) was not very effective ([9]) — it seems that the user wants certain text to be in the article. What should my next step be? -- Plutor 01:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Left message on user's talk page. --Wgfinley 05:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User responded to my message and advised the other user hasn't returned to change anything, will let me know if anything develops. Moved to closed. --Wgfinley 14:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask again to stop Nikola Smolenski and other Serb nationalists (like User:PANONIAN) that are spreading incorrect information and supporting Serb War Criminals. Just look at Nikola's user page, and read his mission ("My interest is in spreading knowledge about Serbs, Serbia, Serbian culture and history."). Then look at his contribution. Serb nationalists are constantly mocking international institutions, ICTY, official documents and courte decisions. This user seams to understand Wikipedia as a political ground for recuitment of the nationalist fringe. He is also denying genocide in Srebrenica which was proven by ICTY. Nikola Smolenski's behavior is very aggressive and I am not sure that anything would help except banning him. He is spreading Serb nationalism, and incorrect information, it seems that he devoted his life to spread lies, and propaganda.

He is making fun of Srebrenica massacre:

On October 4, 2005, the Special Serb Government Working Group of Republika Srpska reported that 25,083 people were involved in the massacre including 19,473 members of various Bosnian Serb armed forces that actively gave orders or directly took part in the massacre. They have identified 17,074 by name.

I have warnd him in his talk page, and few times in Republika Srpska article, but that didn't stop him. You can also look at his contributions: User:Nikola Smolenski.

He is destroying these articles:

• History of Republika Srpska
• Republika Srpska (up to lock-up)
• Srebrenica Massacre
• Bosnians
• Bosniaks

Plz do something with this Serb nationalists. Emir Arven 16:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please act on this ASAP [10]

We're here to help with people present their side or advocate an issue for them. This request is more of a call for a traffic cop, we don't do that, that's what Admins are for if policies are being violated. If it's a particular point of view you're having trouble with I'm certain that will be handled in the normal editing process. I'm moving this to closed because of the request of us to "do something" with the person in question, that isn't our role. --Wgfinley 05:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been posting to Wikipedia for very long, but I made a couple of edits to Greek Reconstructionism correcting what I had reason to believe was a factual inaccuracy, and came back a month later to see that my edit had been attacked at length on the article's Talk page by this person who never seems to sign his/her posts and who had gone and somehow discovered my full name and apparently dug up every article I ever wrote to any Hellenic mailing list. This person is making all kinds of untrue statements about me, my group affiliations and my personal biases, and refuses to back up these statements with references or links. He/she keeps referring to past disputes I knew nothing about because they happened long before I was involved in the organizations in question. I have stated that I really don't care about the issue any more and they can edit the page to say whatever they want, but I really would like it if there were some way to remove all the references to my real name, permanently, because it makes me VERY uncomfortable to have my real name published on Wikipedia by someone who obviously thinks the very worst of me and will continue to make negative comments about me on the Talk page. I feel like I am being stalked, and I'm scared. Seriously, I edited like two lines of this article and I have already told the person that they should by all means fix it to say whatever they think is accurate, but they won't leave it (or me) alone! What do I do? AdelaMae 09:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your information has now been removed to the best of my ability. Please check your e-mail, as I have sent you something which would be prudent for you to read and respond. Thanks. --HappyCamper 05:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears user was helped, left message on talk page advising to contact if more help needed. --Wgfinley 04:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the profanity policy, we shouldn't upload offensive pictures if they are not essential for the article to be understood. There is a explicit draw on the anal sex article. I removed it sometimes, but it keeps being re-added, a couple of users says that I cannot censor Wikipedia. I'm avoiding a revert war. However, I can't see how that picture can help the article to be understood. It's a draw showing a woman inserting a strap-on dildo on a man's anus. I don't see how the picture can be suitable for an encyclopedia, since it has no educational or scientific use. Please contact me on my talk page. Thanks for the help. --Alberto msr 14:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's page indicates "Gone until February 2006". Resubmit if still an issue though I think you're swimming upstream on that issue. --Wgfinley 04:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People keep removing a merge tag. The tag is less than 7 days old and the discussion is live. See the ongoing discussion at Talk:United Kingdom.

Can anyone assist with the revert war please?

Moving unsigned request to closed -- we're advocates, not Jedi or keepers of the peace, that would be Admins. --Wgfinley 04:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration against myself has been submitted. Would be gratefull, if somebody could offer his/her help. Please contact me via my talk page.--AndriyK 19:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This arb case is about to be concluded, all arguments made, moving to closed. Sorry we didn't have a prompt response. --Wgfinley 04:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is now at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. I'm trying to decide if I should be a party, or just provide evidence if now that the case is accepted. (Details removed by me 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC).) I've only been contributing a few months, so I'm not sure what the proper procedure would be. -- Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I removed the details above (although anyone can find them using the edit history), but I think I do have a different perspective than the complainants, and may be able to explain some evidence in a way the complainants cannot. I'm still not sure whether I should present evidence or join the complaint. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I'll make my own decision as to whether to offer evidence, as most of the editing that I've been involved with disputes with Carl have been polite, even though he's still wrong. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I request assistance with user Dominick, who has been stalking me, sabotaging my work. The animus stems from a dispute concerning the entry Traditionalist Catholics, which is about to go into mediation. Meanwhile, Dominick is following me around removing links to a traditional Catholic site (and specific pages at the site) he does not like. A few examples:

• Removed a link to the page "Religious Life" from the entry "Nuns."
• Removed link to a screen capture of EWTN's priests calling the Novus Ordo a "complete fabrication" from the entry "Novus Ordo Missae."
• Removed a link to Jewish-Christian relations section from the entry "Jewish-Christian Reconciliation."
• Removed link to Epiphany customs from the entry "Epiphany."
• Removed another link to the page called "Religious Life" from the entry "Religious Order."
• Removed link to site's index page from the entry "Catholicism"
• Removed link to the site's index page from the entry "Apologetics"
• Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Anthony from the entry "Anthony of Padua."
• Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Brigid from the entry "Brigid of Ireland."
• Removed link to page called "Votive Offerings" from the entry "Ex-voto."
• Removed link to pages on the Days of the Dead from an entry "Day of the Dead."
• Removed a link to a page on Twelfthnight from an entry called "Twelfth Night".
• Removed a link to a page on Catholic funerals from an entry called "Requiem."
• Removed link to page summarizing Catholic doctrines about Mary from a page called "Immaculate Conception"

He summarizes the above links as "link spam" and has been accusatory in summaries, basically slandering me. Used2BAnonymous 16:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer this one, this preempts my own action. I have a list of problems with this user's conduct. ALso the links I removed are link to this users own website, that this person runs, and often are out of context and portrayed as an "official" Catholic position. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I may be able to help, but I would need to know exactly what remedies or services you are seeking? Informal mediation? Arbitration? Keep in mind that neither of these remedies are approrpaitely requested here, but I may be willing to help if there is a clear request.Gator (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Dominick: No, the site in question is a traditional Catholic website. If you can find the word "official" -- or anything remotely resembling it -- associated with the links in question, let us know.

To Gator: I am not sure what services I am seeking, but as to remedies, I want him to stop harrassing me, stalking me, erasing perfectly good and relevant links simply because he doesn't like them, libeling me, etc. Used2BAnonymous 16:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I need a more precise idea of what you want. We here at the AMA are not enforders of policy. You might want to try an admin for that. If you and Dominick would like to enter an informal mediation, I might be able to be of some service. other than that, you might want to try adn take your request somewhere else.Gator (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I think this can be handled informally. It would be better for U2BA. I will not enter in a debate here, Gator. I will say the site in question is an extremist view traditional website, that is owned by the linker. I explained that wikipedia is not a site traffic enhancer. She got mad, she wants mediation. If she has good faith I think a mediator can explain it. So far another admin could not work with her. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going ot advise Used2BAnonymous to file an RFC (request for comment) against Dominick if she really feels that Dominick is stalking, libeling etc. her. This really isn't the right place for this.Gator (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For older requests, see Archives: 1 2 3 4