Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance

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.

Requesting advocacy

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

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

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

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

Requests for assistance

Note: This is not a place to request Mediation or Arbitration. This is also not a place to engage in debate or argument with another party.

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

Tabib and Rovoam

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)

America's Army

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)

User:JonGwynne vs. User:William M. Connolley

This is a request for an opinion as to whether the dispute between us has progressed to suitability for RFA. We have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne. The former was started by another user, but this is a multi-party dispute. The dispute has spread over many of the pages related to climate change: see for example Global warming, Medieval Warm Period (where JG has got himself his third 3RR ban) or Greenhouse gas (which has lead to its protection). Edits such as this [1] or [2] indicate that mediation is unlikely to succeed (many other examples are available if needed).

Note that this is a slightly tangled dispute: in essence there are two components: differences of opinion as to the contents of the climate type articles (a multi-user dispute); and extreme incivility by JonGwynne (almost entirely to me) - (William M. Connolley 20:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

(William M. Connolley 23:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)) No answer: never mind. I'm going to put this into RFA.

User:WikiUser vs. User:ChrisO et al

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

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

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

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

User:ChrisO has rejected mediation [3] and indicated his intent to take the issue to arbitration [4]. Is anyone involved in this case? - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 00:53, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Daeron and various issues related to West Papua et al

Article title dispute

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.

Papua (Indonesian province)

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.

West Papuan genocide

(original title indicated direct link to [5] - 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.)

User:AladdinSE and content dispute over Arab-Israeli Conflict

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

Lupitaº re: Mestizo

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)

Stude62 vs. User:Rananim et al re Ohio Wesleyan University

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

Rananim's response about Wesleyan

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

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

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

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

Response by User:Stude62

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

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

Re: Wesleyan

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

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

Kieth-

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

Answered requests

anon vs. User:Willmcw re Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

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)

User:Anthony Di Pierro Arbitration

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)

User:Joshuaschroeder vs. User:Ungtss

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)

User:Drostie vs. User:SimonP et al. re red links to bible verses

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)

User:El_C vs. User:Sam Spade

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)

User:dnagod vs. User:jpgordon et al

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's complaint

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's comments

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 [6]. 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)

Homophobia

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)

Liberal Party of Australia

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)

User:PaulinSaudi vs. User:Philip Baird Shearer re Operation Biting

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]

Closed issues

User:Katefan0 vs. User:149.243.232.3

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

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

Ollieplatt vs. Radicalsubversiv

Radicalsubversiv has accused me of vandalism and sockpuppetery.

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

He has failed to do either.

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

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

Archived requests

For older requests, see Archives: 1 2