Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Gary123

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

Case Filed On: 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Please see the following pages:



Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer:YES

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: content dispute/personal attack

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer: I have attempted to request that John Smith's explain his actions but he has to date refused

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer:I would like my point of view to be organized into a concise and coherent manner and hopefully end any vindictive campaigns against me. For the last month I have been afraid to make edits to wikipedia out of fear that John Smith's would immediately interfere in the article. I hope to be able to edit wikipedia with the same confidence I once had and to not fear that my eidts will be judge out of retribution and not merit. Johnsmith's bullying has made it very hard for me to contribute and I've made several important contributions to wikipedia including the 1911 encycliopedia, countless Victor Hugo articles and many military and political articles. Many of the stubs I have created have vbecome major articles. This all would have been impossible had Johnsmith's been immediateley there to remove any of my contributions. I'd like to be able to contribute again without having a vindictive search for any flaws in all my edits.


I began noticing between 2005-2006 the steady growth of Mao the Unknown story over wikipedia. While most historians acknowledge Mao's flaws that particular work has not been accepted by mainstream scholars and can best be described as pophistory with an extreme POV. I was disturbed when I saw how the Red Star Over China book had more devoted to the UK story's attacks on Edgar Snow than on the classic work itself. Hoping to promote a chnage I posted my objections on the talk page of Red Star and the talk page for unknown story. John Smith's and me had a debate about the merits of the source at the talk page. I then noticed that shortly after our dispute John Smith's removed several links from China-related articles and from the People's Volunteer Army article. Initally I was willing to accept this as a coincidence, but when I discovered comments on the Red star Over China page I realized that John Smith's had pursued theese articles vindictively. When I saw his nomination for deltion on Frank Hogan a NYC prosecutor he knew nothing about and far out of his range of expertise I was outraged. Thankfully users with more knowledge about NYC backed me up basically ending the dispute.

However crazyeddie rekindled the dispute after I made anedit to PVA. Initally I assumed that crazyeddie was trying to help and was jsut upset by the way the dispute had dragged over into other pages. However his nomination to delete Frank Hogan was completeley unmerited as revealed by the results of the VFd. This dispute began in early October and I have done my best to solve this problem without requesting assitance, after the Frank Hogan debacle however I feel I have no other choice.

Please see the following pages:


DOCUMENTATION OF John Smith's Activities[edit]

17:30, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story (→Unknown History VIRUS INFECTING wikipedia one article at a time)

Me and John Smith's have a dispute over the validity of including MAo the uk story as a source in so many articles. 17:37, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Liberation Army (rv; don't need forums - professional websites are better)

John Smith's removes a link i put up

  1. 17:45, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Red Star Over China (→Unknown VIRUS)

Posts a nasty comment on the talk page of ana article where I complained about the unknown story orignally.

17:52, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Frank Hogan (google search does not indicate this was an important person)

suggests speedy deletion of an article in a category he knows nothing about despie other users with any knowledge of NYC knowing Hogan's great importance.

19:18, 11 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links)

Removes links in an article I created.

19:19, 11 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Korean War (→External links)

Removes links in an article I created.

  1. 18:41, 13 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links)

Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

18:41, 13 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Korean War (→External links)

Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments.

09:35, 14 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links)

Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

23:06, 14 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links) Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

10:42, 15 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:People's Volunteer Army Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page! something there)

17:10, 13 December 2006 John Smith's (Talk | contribs) (link when there's actually something there)


You said that John Smith made you afraid to edit wikipedia. If John Smith was doing this to you why didn't you take it up earlier with fellow wikipedians of administrators if he was being such a problem. Nobody has to be afraid to edit.

I think that in this case everybody in mind has to remain civil and assume good faith here. Your both trying to improve Chinese articles so you both have the same goal.

What I want to know is are the edits made by John smith in breach of WP:NPOV? and what does the surrounding wikipedia community think of the book User:John Smith has been using to cite sources that you are against (WP:CITE). Does the Information he put up contain any POV?

In future please don't go spamming talk pages with your opinion (WP:NOT). Try to take it up with the person or group in question. I saw no or very few comments from you on John Smiths talk page. Please try to remain civil and discuss things rather thank throwing insults and spamming in future.

If you have any Comments please discuss on my talk page. Culverin? Talk 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This all started off with Gary complaining about a book on several talk pages, which obviously I thought was pretty ridiculous - so I joking replied to one or two of his comments. He then complained because of an article or two he'd been working on, which I had thought should be deleted/altered. For the Frank Hogan one, I honestly had no idea that a position like he had could make him important. My fault for not checking, but in this country prosecution lawyers are not political appointments, so it's virtually impossible for them to become notable.
The problem is that Gary kept spamming talk pages with comments about me and crazie and used his own talk page as a place to mountain a campaign against us. Now personally I think that's rather low, and he should remove the comments. There isn't actually a dispute at the moment because several people identified the worth in the Frank Hogan article - he just seems either a very hysterical person or a very manipulative one that is pretending there is a current dispute (when there isn't one).
This is a copy of comments I have made earlier. There is no dispute between us - Gary is just being vindictive. I believe this to be the case given he maintains he is "too scared to edit wikipedia", yet he is doing just that - he's even put himself forward as an AMA member! How can someone do such a difficult job like that and yet be a nervous wreck?!? John Smith's 10:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What is this book that Gary hates. Is it a novel? I think that this hole even could of been averted if all of you had just discussed this instead of slinging rude comments back and fourth. Do other people use this articular books are a reference or just John. Does the information that John has been puting up contain any POV?

I that the personal attacks should stop.

Also where is User Crazy eddie?

Can Gary Cite a referance about this book being POV? Culverin? Talk 00:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer:

AMA Information[edit]

Case Status: open

Advocate Status:

  • I am in the house. Culverin? Talk 03:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)