Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This archive created on 22-Dec-2005. This entails a few months of requests that were responded to or moved. If you have something here that you would like a request answered on please fill out a new request. This is here for historical purposes and roughly entails April 2005 - October 2005 request activity. --Wgfinley 04:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Requests for Assistance


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This issue is moot: u2ba has left, the hundred-odd links she added to her site in various articles have been removed as linkspam. This issue can probably be archived. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I'd like someone to help me have my permission to edit in the Wikipedia (project) namespace restored. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to post this request on the project page itself. Can someone please move this there? See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2. anthony 16:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (imputed by Izehar on 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC))


He keeps attacking me at Talk:University of Ottawa and I can't remove it or I'll violate 3RR. He's quite annoying, and I'm at my wit's end. Please help. --20px Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

User:The Truth Now, User:MilIosh, maybe User:Undertaker's destiny

As well as IP addresses listed below.

It seems that the last two users are made with only intention to make personal attacks against me (by the first user), as well as to compromise my edits. You can see that User:MilIosh is user account with the clear intention to have username like mine (capital "I" instead of small "l"). This user removed my ask for assistance, as well as all contributions of this user is just removing my last request from this page and one edit of his/her user page. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is my last request for assistance. Also, note the text above and, please, introduce me what to do. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

(Also, user:, 154, 169, 50) I need assitence about this user because I am not sure that anything would help except banning him. While I don't care for personal attacs, this person would make a lot of damage to Bosniak community (as well as to relations between Bosniak community and others communities from Balkans) on this Wikipedia (with ban at the end). I asked User:Emir Arven whould he want that I start into process of banning this user. He didn't answer, but User:Live Forever asked me to do so. I have to say that I personally left Welcome message to this user (i.e. The Truth Now) to introduce him into Wikipedia, but he continued to behave like as a partisan. While such person (any kind of nationalist/fascist partisan) would be banned on Serbian Wikipedia without a lot of discussion, I am not sure what to do here. Please, look at my talk page (fascistic personal attaks + copyright violation), history of the Bosnian Church page (edit war with an admin on this wikipedia; User:Joy), User talk:Emir Arven#Bosnian language (elaboration of Bosniak fascist ideology) etc., as well as his contributions: The Truth Now,,,,, So, what should I do? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 09:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Biased Arbitrators and invisible accusations "Help!"

I would like to request some assistance and advice over some unfair treatment I suspect I have been subject to. I have been participating in a content dispute in an article for the past five months. About a month ago, I requested arbitration (after having requested for comment and proposing mediation) on the grounds that my edits were combatable with Wikipedia policy and were backed by reliable sources, as opposed to the individual who I was complaining about, whose edits were not and he refused to co-operate despite the many concessions I had made. The first arbitrator to respond said that he rejects the case and says that he may complain about me because my edits were found insulting by a proportion of the people who the article was in reference to. I did not complain about his vote, but I did complain about the fact that he suggests that I was in the wrong and could have arbitration brought against me, and I asked him to explain that to me, given that Wikipedia policy clearly says that my edits are perfectly acceptable and I suggested that he may be displaying double standards, as he conveniently chooses which policies are binding and which ones are not. He then changes his vote and says that he would like the case to be about my behaviour. His proposal was accepted and I now have an arbitration case brought against me for the purpose of considering my behaviour. When I asked him what was I being accused of, he just said that they will be considering my behaviour. I asked the other arbitrators who accepted the case the same question and I received similar replies. This seems unfair to me: I believe that I have the right to know what I am being accused of. How am I supposed to defend myself if I don't know what I am being accused of? I also suspect bias, as the arbitrator may have not taken kindly to my suggestion of double standards. A casual glance at his talk page would reveal that his "way of doing things" has been questioned before. I would like an advocate to have a word with the arbitrators and notify them that having an arbitration case brought against me without specific accusations is unfair and wrong, and ask them to make specific accusations or to drop the case. I need to know what I am being accused of. Saying that the purpose of the case is to "consider my behaviour" does not refer to any specific transgression nor to any particular aspect of my behaviour. I tried to guess what they were referring to and made an appropriate statement, the problem now it that it exceeds 2000 words and there is a 500-word limit. If I knew what I am being accused of, then I could remove the redundant parts. This whole case is unfair: I have the right to know the accusations against me so that I can defend myself. It is not fair for them to conceal them from me and then expect me to defend myself adequately. All other arbitration cases have specific accusations against the "defendant". Why not me? Any advocate who would be willing to assist me will have to have a good knowledge of procedure. I really need help with this. I have prepared a whole lot of evidence including diffs. I would like the advocate who accepts this case to e-mail me (my e-mail can be found on my user page), as I will require strict confidentiality over this issue until it is solved. The arbitration case is here. Thank you. REX 22:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Nikola Smolenski

I would like to ask for assitance about Nikola Smolenski because his behavior is very aggressive and I am not sure that anything would help except banning him. This person would make a lot of damage to Serb community, as well as to relations between Serb community and others communities from Balkans on this Wikipedia (Bosniak and Croatian). He is spreading Serb nationalism, and incorrect information, it seems that he devoted his life to spread lies, and propaganda.

He keeps deleting some parts of the article called Republika Srpska, like this, 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.

Also he keeps renaming Bosnian language into Bosniak language, which is incorrect information, because there is just Bosnian language in ISO-639 standard, and in English. (This is a special Serb policy toward Bosnian language, some kind of denying Bosnian language spreading incorrect information.)

Some other users which work on Republika Srpska article, support the request for assistence.

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.

I don't know what to do. Emir Arven 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles under constant attack by this user:

I would urge for admins to intervene into the latest activity of this user. His pushing of agenda and nationalistic POV has a tendancy to escalate on several articles. We are currently faced with potential edit war on Republika Srpska article. This user seams to understand Wikipedia as a political ground for recuitment of the nationalist fringe.--Dado 15:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

These two guys (Nikola and PANONIAN) seem to work in team. I don't know if anyone is attending to this issue by if these users are continually allowed to vandalize paged the Wikipedia is slowly becoming a beeding ground for nut cases and individuals who need serious psychological help. -- Dado 00:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


Without going into the details on who this user is he is specifically promoting a personal agenda. He is abusing his rights as an Admin and is clearly not following the correct Wikipedia procedures in removing POV on two articles and not addressing the discussion page. The articles in question are Canadian Heritage Alliance and Melissa Guille there is clear libel going on here and I would appreciate it being addressed as soon as possible. I would appreciate it if communications on this issue take place on the discussion page. Thanks you.

The articles in question are sourced and, I'm sorry, but there is no libel there. If the London Free Press refers to Guille as a "White supremacist" in one of its news articles there's no reason we shouldn't. Homey 12:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


This fellow is a prolific editor and writes very, very short stubs. Some people tried to help him but he doesn't learn well. Some of his very short stubs have been expanded into very good articles. For some reason his behavior is regarded as bad for Wikipedia, though I see no evidence that he has ever failed to edit in good faith. His case is now in the evidence phase before the arbitration committee. I would recommend that he apply to AMA himself, but I don't think he'd know how to do that.

I hate to see him hounded like this when he is clearly trying to contribute to Wikipedia, but my powers of advocacy are not up to his defence. If anyone deserved--and needed--an articulate defense, he does. --Tony SidawayTalk</sup> 21:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute with user who is unwilling to discuss and keeps reverting

A user is repeatedly making reverts to the pages of Reza Pahlavi II and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for the past few days. This person refuses to take part in a discussion on the topic, and simply seems to ignore the reasoning which is - as it seems -accepted by all other contributors to the page. He/She shows no interest in finding an intermediate solution either, and simply makes reverts all the time. Several warnings have not been useful. The person likely is using a dynamic IP address which these days has been and more recently (That it is the same person is clear from the type of revert, which is exactly the same.) This, I beleive, qualifies as vandalism, as the points of dispute are simple historical facts, agreed upon also by others in the discussion page. The person does not give any reasoning for their behavior, either, and is effectively undermining the validity of the articles by their his/her behavior. By nominating this as vandalism, however, I got a response that this is actually a content dispute, by jredmond. This is true, however, how should one proceed if the other side seems deaf and blind and just keeps reverting no matter how you reason or try to approach their point of view? Shervink 03:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy2

user from IP address has vandalized this page at least 3 times today. he changes 'delete' that users have registered to 'keep' votes and posts slanderous comments. please stop this user from committing any more vandalism.--Alhutch 19:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

user from IP address has vandalized my user page, despite repeated warnings to stop vandalizing wikipedia.--Alhutch 16:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi, the user Asterion has filled the article about ETA of rumours and linked them to pages (in spanish) that fail to prove any of his assertions. I posted an explanation for my changes on the discussion page, but instead of repliying to my post or triying to prove through the discussion page his views, he simply reverted the page and said my changes were vandalism. I've explained my views, and I've asked him to explain why has he made those changes both in the article's discussion page, and his user's discussion page, and not only he hasn't replied, but he has gone so far as to delete my explanation from his page saying i was smearing. Can someone check it? I haven't done anything wrong and I've followed the procedure when editting the pages, explained my changes, contacted the other user only to find disdain and scorn, I haven't written any unsuitable information, I'm just triying to make sure that rumours and POVs are left out of the article, specially when they're "backed" with false irrelevant information, in a language other than english. I don't want to start an edit war, but leaving the article as it is now is not an option.

Snoop Dogg

Please help me with this! A user (Drdr1989) is editing on the Snoop Dogg article with incorrect information, regarding the year of his birth by changing 1971 to 1972. He/she is unconvinced with my souces (,, etc.) and has reverted it nearly 3 times. Before the user registered, there were some users trying to make correct edits, then some different user changed it as well. If you have any questions, please feel free visit the talk page and thanks for any help you may provide. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

And before you help, take a look at and the cover of Snoop's film "Murder In The First" which officially state "1972"! Also take a look at AMG music guide, MTV, VH1... Oh.. this is such a tragedy... Help! Help! Help...... (or at least donate - Oh wait a minute, that's over) Drdr1989 03:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


I have a dispute with User Talk:Zoe about the deletion of my article and her behavior. I believe she is not being constructive. My arguments are already contained here: this article's entry


User is suspected of commiting socketpuppetry. The issue have been brought up to Wikiquette, RfC and Sock puppets without much progress. Talk also has been going on at user_talk:Garywbush, user_talk:earth and Talk:Kafir. Case started at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kaafirphobia.

user: Stlemur

This user ran around and accusing a lot of people fascist. He adds the templete of fascism on a lot of pages related to non-fascist parties.

user: 138.162.0.x

On page Kathleen Blanco, this user using different IP like,, probably as well, He cited some source, but kepting modify the content of the source to make a personal view against one side, I do not want to playing editing war game, and need assistance, for detail, plz see talk page of the article

User:Rafti Institute

This user has made a small career for himself by plagarising materials he does not own copyright to, in the field of body modification. He is using Wikipedia to advance his personal agenda, and may also be using it to promote his products. His repeated removal of links to Body Modification E-Zine articles that are either source material for Wikipedia edits or are highly relevant to the entry that contains them and his repeated vandalism of the Wikipedia entry on BME evidence this. Due to the fact that he derives personal income from selling compilations of other people's copyrighted materials, I believe it is a conflict of interest for him to even edit body modification pages at all. In the past several days, he has vandalised BME, Body Piercing and tattoo. He has also engaged in a flurry of material related to images, and in the past, he has had issues with the copyright of his images. Many of his publications contain images that he doesn't own copyright to, so I'd imagine the same behavior occurs here. I'd like to see him banned from Wikipedia, personally, as he is both a vandal and he may jeapordizing Wikipedia by introducing stolen, copyrighted material to the site. Glowimperial 12:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Allies of World War II

Hi! I need help to restore historical justice and protect the neutral version of the article. Some Polish nationalists obstinately put on the page their nationalistic view of the matter, anti-Soviet propaganda and extreme unneutral comments. Also they delete any words about Polish participation in Czechoslovakia seizure etc.

The main point that I defend is factual accuracy that USSR was not an ally of Germany even in 1939. My argumentation could be seen on the descussion page:Talk:Allies of World War II.

So I ask for advocacy in protection the neutral version of the article. - Nixer 00:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Haley Barbour

User:StanZegel consistently reverts any mention, even NPOV, of Barbour's appearance at a Council of Conservative Citizens barbecue. I feel that the fact that this was a well-known and well-reported event warrants its inclusion, but StanZegel just reverts any mention of it. I don't believe I am incorrect in this assessment, but I would like someone more experienced than me to analyze this. KrJnX

===Broadbandreports=== This article seems to go under spurts of edit war reverts. Most of the information removed is done by anons, which is rv back by logged in wikipedians. I am requested assistance with this article. It is my first time requesting assistance and hope this is the appropriate path after reading some policies on edit wars, arbitration, AMA assistance, and protection policy. As I have been involved in some of the rv edits, I see I cannot ask for an article temp protection to begin a cool off period. Hence, I'm seeking help. Thanks in advance. --Paul Laudanski 16:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note, I have re-checked the protection policy and noticed that I can ask for a protection, and that an admin who may be involved in an edit war can not protect that page. Ergo, I have requested a temp page protection using the instance of the article before the edit war began during which I'm seeking the AMA assistance for review. --Paul Laudanski 17:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

User:John Kenney starting multi-page revert-war on William I of Orange/William I, Prince of Orange

I think I about had it with the new royalist fashion of no longer naming people the way they are known best/referred to most often (as the basic wikipedia guidelines would have it). These people ar warring for ages on the pages regarding the guidelines about how nobility should be named (in the title, in the article text, how they should be adressed, even if dead for millenia, etc..., etc...). The folly has hit WP:BJAODN, wikipedia:lamest edit wars ever several times, to the point one starts thinking these people are trying to achieve notoriety by being mentioned on these pages as often as they can.

Now, the latest: William I of Orange's page (note that this guy is actually best known as William the Silent, but his "nobility names" William I of Orange or William I of Orange-Nassau are perfectly sound), so this guy's page was moved this morning to about the only "William" page that had not yet been created: William I, Prince of Orange. I reverted explaining that it is best to have the simplest unambiguous name according to which someone is known, re-redirecting all double redirects (about 10). A few hours later re-reverted by User:John Kenney (who forgot to re-redirect Willem van Oranje of the Netherlands), giving as edit note: This is a perfectly recognizable name, and is clearer, and it follows the naming policy. No, the name is not clearer to anyone who is used to talk about the guy (the clearer name would be the "Orange-Nassau" variant; and "William I of Orange" is perfectly in order with naming policies of whatever kind).

See also Wikipedia:Move#Undoing_a_move_2, warning against move wars.

User Imdaking is continuing to harrass me, and vandalising my talk page

Someone, please respond. This person is retaliating because I edited a page of his, then reported him for sock puppeting as users Unike and Chriss P. I have documented his use of alternate identities on my talk page, and now he has deleted it. I will revert my talk page; please post a message her or on my page. Paul Klenk 05:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

User Tern is harrassing and libelling us

The user Tern has used his talk page to continue an harrassment of my wife and I that he conducts in real life and across the internet. He has used copyrighted quotes of mine out of context, and for no reason on his talk page, including allegations that we bullied a recently deceased friend of ours. He has also used the dicussion page of asperger's syndrome to make more allegations. My wife AmyNelson has made a complaint about that below the comments themselves in hope of having them removed. We feel it is totally wrong for wikipedia to be used for this purpose of harrassment and hope that his comments can be kept in some way relevant or reasonable. I know that he has been banned twice in the last week under the 3 revert rule, and for spamming, but will no doubt return. Can someone help with this? GarethNelson 26 August 2005 01:35am (BST)

Thankfully this issue has now been resolved as the user was perm banned for other violations anyway. GarethNelson 27 August 2005

User Bluemoose is repeatingly erasing links to a topic related Museum

These are the leading museum's in Europe regarding the topics where I placed the Links as external links or as Museum. I am a frequent guest at the museum and even if they are in Germany / and the sites are (partly) in German - the have guests from all over the world and the tours are available in German, English, French, ... These are no links for advertisement like many other links there.

The above anonomous user has been repeatedly adding external links to many articles to a german language museum webpage, apparently because it is a good museum, other admins have been reverting it as well. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 19:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The only admin reverting my links is Bluemoose
And User:Solipsist, but who's counting. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 19:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

2001 Cincinnati Riots - Mystery editor

I have been having an edit war with an individual who is not participating in the Talk portion & who's information (IP or name) doesn't show in my watchlist. I have invited them to resolve our differences in the talk portion but they are not responding & continue to make edits invisibly. Please assist. --Duemellon 16:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

At 03:24, 23 August 2005 the user: blanked the page & it was reverted by Benanhalt. That IP number matches the invisible editor's from before.
At 03:19, 23 August 2005 the user went to another page I recently edited & removed subtopics I added. It would appear I have a WikiStalker on my hands.
At 12:32, 23 August 2005 the user returned to the page to remove a recent subtopic I added. They are not participating in discussions.
At 20:28, 23 August 2005 the user returned to Cincinnati, OH & removed the link added for the 2001 Cincinnati Riots. They still have not joined in a discussion.

Problem appears resolved. They stopped. --Duemellon 14:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Genre of System of a Down

Hello, I am having a problem here! Please help me! A user (Dalkaen) is repeatedly editing on System of a Down and the Nu metal musical groups list by changing the genre nu metal to alternative metal on System of a Down and removing the band's name on the Nu metal musical groups list. You see, I have been trying to settle things with the user, but he refuses to do so and continues to revert the edits on both articles. He has also threatened to ban me over the genre. I'm telling him the band does have someting to do with nu metal, they are nu metal and they will always be nu metal. That's all there is to it! 04:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who is giving out incorrect information. The band is really not nu-metal, according to the talk page. That's why you got banned. -- Mike Garcia | talk 19:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Workshop#Locus of dispute

This request is relating to a possible systemic bias. In my opinion, the core issue of the dispute is concerning NPOV as I explain here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Workshop#Locus of dispute. I am requesting impartial arbitrators to address this arbitration specifically the "locus of dispute" which has, so far, been mainly ignored by User:MarkSweep (who filed the RfArb just prior to his nomination as admin). The locus of the dispute has mainly been ignored by the administrators currently working on the arbitration. Instead they have been focusing on symptoms of the dispute instead of the basic and original dispute concerning NPOV or several highly controversial articles. I view the RfArb as a filibuster to avoid the issue regarding NPOV.

Note: I have never even been the subject of RfC and there has not been a RfM concerning this dispute over NPOV. One RfM was filed but I view it as another filibuster focusing on symptoms rather than the actual dispute. That RfM was not accepted. It should be taken into a consideration that I am a Scientologist and I would appreciate arbitrators who are not biased against Scientology. Also note the "treatment" of me has resulted in my tentative decision to quit Wikipedia. --AI 03:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for any assistance.

In the meantime, because of Wikipedia's lack of concern I have adopted an attitude that Wikipedia is incompetant and damaging to the global society. Time has indicated that the arbitration on me is being coordinated by critics of Scientology who are attempting to prevent me from contributing important data regarding the critics. My information is substantiated and necessary to NPOV the articles on Arnie Lerma, David Touretzky, Keith Henson, Xenu, and Fishman affidavit. I am under attack by a cabal of "Critics of Scientology" and their sock puppets and their front man MarkSweep has filed an arbitration on me without while ignoring any problems with the other contributors simply because I am the Scientologist and cleaning up the misinformation and propaganda. For example, Lerma was convicted of his copyright violation yet he has Maureen D(Drueck) working on the article reverting my addition. Please see talk pages on these articles. Their actions are outrageous yet I am the one being scrutinized because the information I present is the truth and damaging to their position which is built on lies! The Xenu article is based on unverifiable sources but remains, yet I am the one who is being scrutinized over petty issues such as refactoring personal attacks and claims that my sources are not acceptable. <ROFL @ Wikipedia> --AI 06:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute with an admin


I have a complaint against UninvitedCompany, an administrator. Basically, he violated the blocking policy, by blocking me (for 72 hours) after I made 2 reverts, claiming I had broken the 3RR policy listing 4 reverts - 22:51 5 August 2005, 23:00 5 August 2005, 08:58 6 August, 23:12 6 August 2005 - however, none of these cover a period over 24 hours. At the time of the fourth revert listed, there was only 1 prior revert in the prior 24 hours. This is also true for the time of the 3rd revert listed.

I accused UnivitedCompany of breaking the blocking policy, and UnivitedCompany openly admitted doing so - "I have indeed violated the letter of the blocking policy". I also accused UninvitedCompany of blocking me because he/she has an anti-Islamic POV and didn't like the fact that I was opposing anti-Islamic POV pushers, UninvitedCompany replied admitting that they have an "extremely anti-Islamic" POV -[1].

I don't feel this is appropriate behaviour for an administrator - violating blocking policy, and reinterpreting 3RR as 1RR, simply to punish people whose opinions they disagree with, isn't really something that should be permissable. Several administrators have already stated that the block was probably inappropriate (and none have supported UninvitedCompany's stance), but they seem unwilling to become involved (possibly due to UninvitedCompany's status as a longstanding admin (which UninvitedCompany claims makes them a "senior administrator", a post which simply does not exist), not that a cabal exists).

I would like to raise an RFC over the matter, but I need a co-signatory to do so, so I was wondering if someone else would be able to look into the matter.



~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is now a (co-signed) RFC against UninvitedCompany as a result of his/her actions - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Dispute with a user

Not sure if this belongs here, but in the last 2 days, I've been in a dispute with User:Michaelm. Perhaps I am a bit quick to judge, but I know this user from other forums. Perhaps I am too emotionally involved as well, as Tommy Douglas is one of my hero's, but he keeps replacing socialist with social democratic on the Saskatchewan page, as well as a number of simialr things that he's done, in the past, to the Belinda Stronach article. If this was any other user, I'd just ignore him, but I know that he will continue to argue that all social democrats are inherent good guys and let his POV get in the way. I dont know if this belongs here, if not, can someone please help me out? I just dont want to end in a vicious edit war with him. thanks in advance. Pellaken 05:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is still ongoing, and it's getting more and more petty. I've been asked to prove that a political party that all the major news networks in canada say is right wing, is seen by most as right wing. The argument is "the party calls itself centrist". well the communist party of the USSR called itself democratic. I am a political science major, and I've spent my entire life, however short its been, studying political parties. I am more certain that this party is right wing then I am that breaking your bones will hurt, its something I KNOW because for YEARS my studies have shown the same thing. I'm starting to get really aggrivated, this guy seems to be wanting to re-write history, and thats not popular with me. can somoene help? Pellaken 19:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

the Saskatchewan Party article has had to be NPOV'ed because of this. is this the place to get action, or should I be posting this somewhere else? I have better things to do then to spend hours searching on the internet looking for commen facts. Pellaken 21:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

ok, we came to an agreement on the article. but the anti-Conservative bias of this place is shining through brightly. Pellaken 19:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for assistance - personal attacks and legal threats

Hello - I would like to file a request for assistance in a dispute with User:SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin has behaved in an extremely hostile manner towards me for the past several weeks after I filed an RfC against two of her editor friends for violating wikipedia policies in an article content dispute. She has attacked me personally several times over the talk pages of several articles and in another RfC complaint against a different editor for personal attacks. She is currently attempting to expunge my additions and exclude me from participation on the Chip Berlet article for POV reasons (she is openly friends with the individual who is the subject of this article - himself a controversial political figure - and is actively trying to insulate him from sourced criticism by his political opponents). She has been extremely uncooperative in attempts to resolve a disagreement over this article's content and, in response to a proposal I made for revising the disputed content, she openly announced that she intends to exclude me from participating there. [2]

In this same message she made several statements alluding to legal proceedings, which I consider to be a legal threat in violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. I have repeatedly voiced my objections to her comments against me, which I consider to be personal attacks, and have directed her repeatedly to Wikipedia:No personal attacks in an attempt to get her to stop. SlimVirgin has been cautioned against personal attacks by the Arbcom before, which ruled "User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation."[3] I have also reminded her of this in an attempt to caution her against further attacks on me, but she has continued. Any assistance you could offer on this matter would be greatly appreciated. SlimVirgin is, unfortunately, an administrator herself and as such has many other administrator friends whereas I am only an editor, so a member advocate is very much needed in this case. Thanks. Rangerdude 22:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific attack

Several pages to do with historic measures and weights are currently under attack.

Revert wars are obviously not going to solve the problem, and discussions have proven futile.

One could probably claim that these are acts of vandalism, which I guess would solve the problem, but I'm convinced the person who does this sincerely believes in his original research, so lets call it that.

The user in question seems to have operated under 3 different IDs:, and rktect.

Most of the claims made are classic pseudoscientific metrology,

but additional problems are a totally arcane Wiki markup, total disrespect for conventions for discussion pages, and typically pasting vast amounts of more or less irrelevant text into articles and talk pages, totally blurring them.

Many articles have been subject to the contributions of this user. Some are currently under control, most are not. For a good example of what the edits consist of, see this example (reverting one attack): Mile (diff).

Main problem areas:

For examples of the discussion style, see the VFD pages for some of his articles:

If anyone could assist, I would be very grateful. -- Egil 10:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Egil about this being a problem. Gene Nygaard 14:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I also agree that this is a problem; I don't think that the problem editor is committing vandalism, but like Egil, I believe that he's sincere in his belief in the pseudoscience he's adding.
The editor in question is, among other things, writing at least partially in the first person, something which I normally only see in original research. On the VfD pages for the various articles, he seems to be trying to confuse the voting by pasting rather large amounts of text from one vote into the others, or pasting entire sections of the articles in question into the votes, rather than engage in actual discussion.
He also seems to be inclined to engage in Wikilawyering and personal attacks (see the third paragraph of this version of this article).
I will say that I think some of the material the problem editor wants to add may have merit, i.e. it may be possible to get a useful, and encyclopedic, article out of some of it after the pseudoscience has been extracted.

I'm certainly not an expert in the subject matter, but it seems to me that a table comparing various systems of weights and measures, without original research as to their interrelatedness, would be very useful.

However, I feel that the way the material is presented, and the stridency of the editor that it be presented in a particular way, make these articles unworkable at this time.

Ken 16:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ken, I was also, to begin with, under the impression that perhaps 10% of the material could be used. Problem was, everywhere I probed, it turned out to be bogus. So I've given up. -- Egil 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

An admin is ignoring wiki guidelines

There is an article written by an Admin which I have been trying to edit for the past 3 days. Everytime I do anything to the article he reverts it back to his original. At first since i was new I kept replacing the whole aritlce with a new one, then another user explained to me that wiki doesnt like that and its better to amend whats already posted. No problem, so I started making amendments and admin continued to revert. So I read up on the wiki guidelines and turns out I had a right in what I was doing. The article was making an accusation without citing source for that allegation or any evidence. Lots of weird things going on just check the discussion page.

The admin who I am having issues with is David Cannon.

One example of what I mean is with this quote: "Despite public denials, there is evidence that the Lebanese Forces accepted military and financial support from the government of Israel in the early years of the civil war."

Where is the evidence? I have removed this from the Lebanese Forces description but David seems to think it belongs there. If there is such evidence I believe it should be linked to it or cited. Unless evidence can be attached to this statement, this line should be deleted. David seems to want to keep this although he has no evidence.

Thank you --usurp 21:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Overcoming Infantilism

A circle of persons have contributed an article entitled "Infantilism" which addresses the topic of Paraphilic Infantilism, a psychosexual condition. This particular circle of people are "pro-infantilism" and have a history of antagonism toward infantilists who view the condition as pathological, or wish to completely overcome the condition. I personally founded an organization named "Overcoming Infantilism" to help infantilists overcome the condition, and this circle of people has a history of antagonism toward my organization.

The article they have submitted is for the most part objective (although it could use some balance, IMO). I have no major problem with the majority of the article, but I object to their attempt to refer to me and my group by name in a negatively biased fashion, in an attempt to publicly attack my group and discredit it. I deleted their reference to myself and my organization and wrote them a nice (in the talk section) note politely requesting they decist from using Wikipedia to push POV attacks against me. I asked that they refrain from writing about me or my private organization without at least contacting me to check out the facts. I included complete contact information.

They responded by deleting my note, making no attempt to contact me, and restoring the POV-biased paragraph against my organization. From my past experience with these people I doubt they will resolve this peacefully. Can someone here please help? I'm a newby to Wikipedia, but I understand the project and I support your mission.

Dean Winiarski

update 8/3/05 - I have made every effort to work with these people peacefully but they are intransigent. They insist on using their article to personally bash me and my organization. The hostility they have toward my organization is a point of public record. They are incapable of an objective view because their POV is radical. They have demonstrated an agenda of seeking to "normalize" their fetish lifestyle within society. OI is a non-profit organization that seeks to help persons who are hurting and struggling to overcome this fetish, and they see OI as a threat because we view this fetish as a potentially destructive sexual addiction. This is clearly an example of Wikipedia being used to promote a fringe POV bordering on personal attack (they are including my personal name). I fear that they will continue to revert the negatively biased description of my organization unless someone steps in to help. - DW

Unending Debate

A few of us have been having an incredibly difficult time repeatedly resolving a debate that just seems to keep going on and on. The user Dai Grepher is practically filibustering the discussion, refusing to answer points or concede any ground whatsoever, insisting that he is right. While I am against his point of view on this, he seems to completely disregard all attempts to solve the issue fairly and refuses to allow any sort of survey to be taken upon it, rather simply wishing for the "winner of the debate" to take all the winnings. The article in question is Metroid: Zero Mission, and the original page of drama was it's talk page, but now the discussion has moved to the following page:

If we could get some assistance in resolving this, I would be much appreciative. The Missing Link 04:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attack

The following location has personal attacks against myself. I am not interested in Arbitrating this matter and would like for the content that deals with the name: 'Kyndig', '', and mentions of my spouse, real world work, current location, and other information that is not in any way related to the content removed. Help from the moderators in removing this is appreciated.

John Lott

Resolved. Thanks to all who helped, everyone is working, er, resonably well "together" in this dispute subject.

Death By Stereo & Co.

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 ([4], [5], [6] and [7]) 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)

Issue of neutrality of first paragraph of the article, Truth

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

Article histories and mysterious alterations!

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)

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

User: Paul Barlow's Naziist POV pushing and User:Jayjg's Zionist POV pushing

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)

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. [8] TheUnforgiven 03:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This is just part of TheUnforgiven's smear campaign against me. The only person I know of who takes his trollishness with any seriousness is the troll User:Witkacy. In case anyone honestly takes TheUnforgiven's allegations seriously, in addition to looking at his "contributions" here, please see [9][10][11][12][13][14], from a 4-day period on the talk page for the article where he alleges that Jay and I were involved in some sort of collusion to trap him into violating 3RR. The problem is that his edit was just plain bad. If you look at those diffs, you'll quickly notice that his contributions consist primarily of patent nonsense and personal attacks, most of which are laced with antisemitic vitriol. I've started a collection of this utter crap at User:TShilo12/RFC/TheUnforgiven. Note that those 6 diffs are representative, they're far from exhaustive. Tomer TALK 10:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Also see List of political epithets where User:Jayjg takes turns with User:Guy Montag in reverting edits. // Liftarn

I am a noob(User:VinnyCee). Can anyone please help with my first dispute?

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!

Anon user and Talk:Green Party of Canada

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. --20px Spinboy 4 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

User:Zereshk and organized POV-pushing

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)

Swami Kriyananda article has lot of external links spamming.

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.

Virago - dispute spillover from German Wikipedia

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 [15], 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 [16] 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)

Green Day's 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours release date

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 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: [17] 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, 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)

Image of Green Day's American Idiot

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 (WB) 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. --

  • 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. -- WB 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)

Serious assistance needed at Monarchist League of Canada

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)

Biased Administrator

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)

Bob Dylan

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)


ADMINISTRATOR ABUSE: Administrator Mustafaa is a Wiki Terrorist

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? - 10:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

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)

Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato attempted survey

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)

Hephaestos' talk page

For some sort of case (or not): A user (The truth about hephaestos/ 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 ( 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)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wareware

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig

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)

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

Old English revert wars

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)

Skin Yard

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

non-death metal bands on the death metal page

Me and Spearhead have reverted edits to Death metal several times by 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)

revert war

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

Unjustified removal of contents

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 (, 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. 16:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Davenbelle, User:Stereotek have beeing intentionaly disagreeing with me just to disagree

One example is here: [18] 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: [19] --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 [20]. 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"[21]. If you go to user contributions [22] 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[23], 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)

Help? --Cool Cat My Talk 20:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)
ALthough I dont think anybody ever reads anything on this page another uniformed effort by the two users [24]. So conviniantly reverting same time. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


I've filed a complaint against user Jayjg for abuse of Admin powers and for blatant Anti-Arab and Anti-Islamic bias. User Jayjg enforces a strict POV bias on all articles relating to Israel and would instantly revert any edits which (s)he perceives as tarnishing the image of Israel, or improving the image of Arabs, Palestinians or Muslims, even if factual. I am not the only person complaining about Jayjg, and wikipedia is littered with editors who received the same treatment. This link [[25]] will take you to te Arbitration page. I would appreciate any help in this matter.A.Khalil 01:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Sydney Hilton bombing

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

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)

Current arbitration case: Tkorrovi, Paul Beardsell et al

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.

Revert War on Wolverine (comics) page

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.

Answered Requests

Someone keeps posting inappopriate (most likely) pictures of gagged women in their bio pages

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)

RFC and beyond - process help needed

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)

Dealing with biased contributions

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)

Part of System of a Down

Well, what can I say? I found another problem around here! A user ( 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)

Flemish Interest

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)

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)

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

West Papuan genocide

(original title indicated direct link to [26] - 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.)

National University of San Marcos(Saint Mark) issue

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)

Tool (the band)

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: [27], [28] and [29] 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)

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, #2

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 (

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

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, 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:[30]. 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 [31] 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

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)

Complaint of a Personal Attack

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." [32]. 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)

Gigantour speedy deletion

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. Flag of Australia.svg plattopusis 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)

Russell Tribunal

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)

Talk:List of countries that only border one other country

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)

Help setting up a survey

I tried to set up a survey at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Montreal/Discussions/Form of former city-current borough names, but another user claimed it was not set up properly. I would appriciate it if someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion could help set up a proper survey. Farquard 20:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have created a voting area and will monitor. - Jord 01:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Upgrading scientific article to accepted standards of verifiability and neutrality

Please clarify the meaning of "whack-job" (see below a transcript of an article's history). I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's jargon.

I've been editing aspects of an article that didn't conform to accepted scientific form, eliminating personal opinions which don't conform to the scientific and humanistic literature on the topic, beginning to include appropriate references, and using language conforming with currently published peer-reviewed material.

I just found that they have been all deleted on grounds of "reverting a whack-job." I'd like to re-write the article as to make it compliant with the Wikipedia policies, in particular concerning verifiable and referenced neutral information (ie, balanced when conflicting definitions have been published in the scientific literature). I didn't encounter any problems doing so in other articles.

Please advice how to proceed to attain the intended scholarly encyclopedia character in the article of reference (see below).

J.-C. Lerman, Ph.D.

NIH Senior Fellow 1984-1986

please reply to

--- from the history of article "sleep paralysis" ---

(cur) (last)  18:25, 31 August 2005 Frecklefoot (revert whack-job did on the article) 
(cur) (last)  17:39, 31 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  17:38, 31 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  17:35, 31 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  17:29, 31 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  06:41, 29 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  06:22, 29 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  06:15, 29 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  06:00, 29 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  00:43, 29 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  02:48, 28 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  02:32, 28 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  02:24, 28 August 2005 
(cur) (last)  06:43, 27 August 2005 (→Normal sleep paralysis)
The edits by User: seem to have been done haphazzardly, using comment tags(<!--) in the midst of sentence unreadable. I restored the user's edits without the comment tags in place and sent him the following email at the specified address:
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:21:35 -0400   
From: "Jordan O`Brien" <>      
Subject: Wikipedia  
Dr. Lerman, 

I have restored your edits to the "Sleep paralysis" page with some changes.   
As you may or may not be aware, Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia 
which can be editted by anyone.  I would recommend reading if you are curious as to its nature in 
more depth. 

Anyone is free to edit any page and I suspect your changes to the above 
article were reverted, and refered to as a "whack job" is because many of 
them were "commented out" in HTML code causing them to not appear in the body 
of the article and thus created fragmented sentences.  I have restored your 
edit with those comments removed.  I have no background in this area of 
science, however, and therefore, I cannot be sure if the person who reverted 
your edits had a problem with their scientific merit or with the manner in 
which they had been inputed into the article.  If the latter, I suspect that 
the problem is now resolved. 

If you are interested in regularly contributing to Wikipedia, I would suggest 
becoming a member.  Details on this are available at 

It is very helpful to create an account as, if something like this were to 
arise in the future, you would be able to correspond with the other editors 
of the page to resolve the problem in a more direct manner. 

Best regards, 
Wikipedia user "Jord" 

PS - If it is unclear, I am responding to your request at 
- Jord 15:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Jord, unfortunately, your revert re-inserted a lot of text that was removed long ago because it couldn't be verified. I've tried to discuss these issues with "Dr. Lerman" on several occasions through Wikipedia, but he keeps insisting that we email him. Of course, you relize, on Wikipedia, we discuss issues about Wikipedia on Wikipedia, but he keep wanting to take up his issues via email.
"Dr. Lerman" refuses to discuss issues about articles on the article's Talk pages. His changes are controversial. If he'd be willing to discuss the issues first, we might be able to come to an agreement. But if he won't abide by wiki-conventions, I don't see any other option than to keep his changes out.
Now, I reverted your revert, Jord, but I don't have anything against you or "Dr. Lerman" (who refuses to create an account). I just want to discuss the wide-sweeping changes he wants to make to the article. By the way, he asked for arbitration on this issue on numerous page on Wikipedia (such as the Help desk), but not once did he bring it up on the most obvious place, the articles talk page. Frecklefoot | Talk 15:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Frecklefoot, thanks for this information. I will follow up with the good doctor and hopefully we can find an aimicable solution here. I tend to agree that the best option is for him to post his concerns on the talk page--with or without an account--and air them there for all to see. In his reply to my email it seems as though he is good natured but not all that familiar with the Wikipedia community and its practices. I will continue to monitor and hopefully help. With respect to my edit, I am not surprised, I did not even read the text of the article but assumed that there was some difficulty there in code and opted to be bold however it seems I assumed incorrectly. - Jord 16:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Closed Issues

Slanderous behaviors

Disregard my warnings in Talk:Taoism#Emptiness or Nothingness ?, there are slanderous behaviours started by Mel Etitis as a supporter of secular taoism: User_talk:Gbog#Fair_Warning



--ETTan 04:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Steve espinola user page and user:willmcw

Concerning my user page-Steve espinola, and the Biff Rose posting, I have had a good deal of trouble with willmcw, who will not leave me alone, and is now accusing me of being a sockpuppet- something I now suspect him of being-Sojambi Pinola seems to be his own sockpuppet, and beyond that has gone on my user page saying that I am not actually making the eidts that I claim to be making. As you can imagine, this is causing a lot of injury to the work I'm doing to this important site, and would like to have him leave me alone. thanks for any attention you can give meSteve espinola 06:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

False edit summary by Raul654

While reading the article on AIDS, I noticed that an editor offered language clarifying the lack of concensus among scientists regarding the etiology of the syndrome. But Administrator Raul654 has apparently twice in short order reverted the npov language, alleging vandalism. Offering meaningful edits that reflect the actual status of scientific discussion is in no way vandalism. Claiming that meaningful, well considered contributions are vandalism is in fact slanderous and bullying. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia writer, but this seems way out of line for a person who claims to be some senior official in the Wikipedia project. Albaco 04:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

When I read further, I notice that administrator Raul654 reverted all edits between Aug 12 and July 28. Is it the role of administrators to wholesale revert two weeks worth of contributions by several editors, then claim those who continue to contribute to the article are "Vandals"? I was told that this is supposed to be a place for people to edit collaboratively. I think my original hunch was right -- this isn't a good place to donate free writing services. !Albaco 05:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This administrator might have settled down, after I contributed edits intended to provide inclusive and accurate encyclopedic content, but his actions seem to be motivated by disdain for scientists whose views don't support a majority view, and a lack of skill in composing language that accurately reflects diversity in controversial scientific matters. That's understandable, but as an administrator -- one who boasts a leading role in the Wikipedia "Community" -- the following advice he posted on his user page seems innappropriate:
Yuck. I agree completely. I suggest you revert to the version from early July and whack anyone who tries to undo that revert. →Raul654 00:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, reputation seems to carry more weight than expertise and skill in this project. AIbaco 07:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
O.o --AI 06:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And Raul654 is one of the biased arbitrators on my case. --AI 06:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

So take it up with him, why don't you. 22:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Alias User:Pigsonthewing

Alias User:Pigsonthewing This guy has problems with deletion of things. Its a shame, All his time is spent deleting rather than building Wikipedia. Therefore I am going to retract before he does all the work and time I've done building pages up. Sorry to have people like him here ruining Wikipedia. Here's just one example from someones page: User talk:Nick Boulevard

Thank-You its been fun up to now. Scott 21:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)