Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance

style="background:#dfffdf"|

If you would like to see which advocates are currently accepting new cases you may check this list of currently available advocates.

Requesting advocacy

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

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

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

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

Requests for assistance

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

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

Dealing With Religious War on Jack Hyles

A group of people have taken it on themselves to post a section of defamatory assertions against Jack Hyles, which they justify by pointing to various newspaper articles and anectdotes. I believe these people will not allow the Jack Hyles page to be anything other than a gossip page devoted to destroying the reputation of Jack Hyles; indeed, one editor recently pointed out that the page has already been through an edit war. I am well-aware that Jack Hyles is controversial and that many people hate him, but I have never seen anyone prove the claims made directly against him. In fact, one of the editors supporting the attacks defends his stand by stating that he never claimed that Jack Hyles actually did the things of which he is accused; he simply wants to have all the published accusations against Jack Hyles listed on Wikipedia. This is not the sort of content an encyclopedia article should contain.

Requesting advocate in dealing with 3 users

• RfC/Diyako
• RfC/Muhamed (does not know english)
• RfC/Heja helweda

In my view the three users are quite disruptive and are making an effort to push systematic bias. They are also extrmely rude and incivil to not just me but everyone they feel are "anti-kurdish" which basicaly is anyone that does not share their pov and are not administrators.

Also note User:Bertilvidet's efforts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan by posting it on roughly 14 talk pages: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

"Suprisingly" most voted keep

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I just think this place is dead given I just fixed section header days after my post. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mongolian Politics

Latebird is attacking Lemonhead. User Latebird is kept posting unverified information on Miyeegombo Enkhbold and kept changing the dates and posts in his "early life" section with not verified backup. Please check the talk page of that article regarding this. User: Latebird is trying to falsely praise Miyeegombo Enkhbold who unconstitionally overthrew Tsakhiagiyn Elbegdorj's government in Mongolia.

I suggested Miyeegombo Enkhbold is 1/ Latebird's idol or 2/ his relative or whoever bribed him and gained illegal financial gain. But common sense is nobody idolize someone who is lower knowledgeable than the person. I see Latebird and assume Latebird most possibly belong to the second category, and according to wikipedia policy it is prohibited to contribute an article by the relative of the subject. Wikipedia is not a place where relatives of someone falsely praise its relative please take appropriate action for Latebird. Thank you. Lemonhead 18:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with an editor insisting on his POV on Miyeegombo Enkhbold (similarly on Tsakhiagiyn Elbegdorj). He keeps deleting sourced and verified information, replacing it by potentially libelous rumours. He is often quite uncivil in edit summaries and discussion. Other editors have noticed the problem before, but either lost interest or lacked the time to do much about it. I have asked for opinions in several places, including WP:WQA, which resulted in basically no echo at all. What I'm hoping for here is advice on how to escalate this properly whithout annoying too many people (myself included). --Latebird 23:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

'Roman Catholic Church' dispute - new user needs help

I've never done this before, so I'm new to this, but I'm asking for assistance from an advocate regarding a dispute on the Talk:Roman Catholic Church#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church page. As you can see, I've requested to move the article from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. I have been making a good faith effort to try and frame my arguments around the naming conventions and common sense, but I feel that others are voting their instincts and not listening to my case, and are essentially creating a new standard exclusively for Roman Catholic Church. I have tried to reach a compromise, but all of those have failed. Please contact me through my talk page. Thanks. --Hyphen5 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

'Burning of Washington' Talk page disagreement with a new Wikipedian

Hi. I'm asking for assistance from an advocate regarding an ongoing disagreement on the Talk:Burning of Washington page, specifically in the "Canadian involvement (?)" section currently at the bottom of the page. A new Wikipedian, User:Godfather of Naples, is IMO violating Wikipedia etiquette. I have been trying to keep my own temper and not respond to the incivility with any aggressive or offensive comments, but I'm finding it difficult.

Could an advocate please look at the discussion on the above page and step in, or contact me through a Wikipedia message or a personal email? Any help would be very much appreciated. Cheers, Madmagic 23:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Spice Girls articles dispute - help need please

I would like to ask for assistance concerning disputes involved the Spice Girls page, and the individual girls pages (Geri Halliwell, Melanie Chisholm, Emma Bunton, Victoria Beckham and Melanie Brown). The issue involves one particular member - Hotwiki. He has constantly dished out insults, personal attacks and threats and acts in a rude and arrogant manner (see Geri Halliwell talk page). Despite improvements made to the pages, he constantly reverts changes - as illustrated on the Emma Bunton, Geri Halliwell and Melanie Chisholm pages.

The main dispute revolves around the Spice Girls discography. On the Spice Girls talk page, I suggested that solo information should be removed and put on the girls own pages. My point is that is a Spice Girls discography - not a Victoria Beckham or Geri Halliwell discography. Very few of the other discographies on Wikipedia that is about a group includes solo info - The Beatles, ABBA, Jackson 5, Backstreet Boys etc. Also, it was suggested that the Spice Girls library be absorbed into the discography to make it a comphrensive collection of the groups work. The consensus from the discussion agreed with the point of view - Hotwiki being the only exception. I have no yet started these changes to the discography, becuase it is very clear the user will simply revert them and I refuse to be draw into such a petty and childish game - so I would glady appreciate assistance, please. Rimmers 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Does "too much" information warrant a revert?

My consolidation of two sections of the Parsi article [15] was reverted by SouthernComfort because "rv unilateral rewrite - you have inserted too much opinion and disregarded that there are other editors involved here".

My request for advocacy with respect to my writeup:

• what is considered "too much opinion"?
• must a rewrite (of my own stuff incidentally) be discussed - particularly since it simply covers matter that is already present, but does so in greater detail?
• is a unilateral rv the correct course of action for a "unilateral rewrite"?

Although SouthernComfort's argument may initially seem plausible, on closer inspection I've determined that SouthernComfort's revert is not for any formal reason's per-se, but simply because the rewrite clarified something which he does not approve of (or does not mirror his personal opinion).

Thus my request for advocacy: Is SouthernComfort's revert legitimate or should my edit remain and be developed (for example, to be less verbose).

-- Fullstop 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over Vicarius Filii Dei article

I'm a newbie. I stumbled across this article and was surprised at its one-sided nature, and its errors of fact. A number of the corrections I have tried to make get removed, and dubious tags have been removed without providing the requested verification. The principal other party has refused mediation.

To keep it simple, the writer(s) of the original article was so unfamiliar with the material that Our Sunday Visitor was called Our Catholic Visitor, and this unfamiliarity with the material partly explains the problems with the article.

Present facts in dispute include the alleged 1832 source and the 1917 and 1941 disavowals by the journal. --DrPickle 14:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet more dishonesty. Bob Pickle is not a "newbie". He is a promoter of a notorious anti-Roman Catholic conspiracy theory on religious internet sites and blog sites. Even the religion that first promoted the claim, the Seventh-day Adventists, and did so for over a century, has now disowned it and the Church's own historian has admitted that the Church's "photographic evidence" was doctored and not real. Pickle is annoyed that users on Wikipedia will not allow him to promote the myth as fact on WP (among other things he did was to try to add in links to his website to the article!!!). All users who have covered the issue on WP have pointed out that his claims have not a leg to stand on, including a former believer of the claim who when he checked it out realised that the claims in the conspiracy does not have a leg to stand on and rests on the sum total of a forged mediaval document, forged photographs, three lines in a minor US magazine in the 1910s (which then admitted it had its facts wrong, twice) and a couple of words in a two or three books out of the millions written about Catholicism. That is the sum total of the "evidence". Pickle promotes the claim of a Catholic Church-wide conspiracy (including a Catholic conspiracy on Wikipedia to supress the evidence without his (or the promoters of the claim) being able to point to a single independently verified piece of evidence, produce the photograph that supposedly "proves" the conspiracy theory's truth despite a century of searching (naturally the Catholic Church destroyed the photograph! lol).

Anyone who doubts Pickle's supposed "newbie status" (ie. just an ordinary contributor) should simply look at his contributions, which are about promoting this claim (and his website) and little else!!! Or notice how in asking for mediation (which no-one but himself supported) he asked that only neutral admins (ie, not those under the sway of the Catholic Church and its Wikipedia conspiracy) get involved. That pretty much sums up his antics here. He is here to promote his POV agenda, his own POV website and his own POV opinions and to push a conspiracy theory even dismissed by most mainstream Protestants and now disowned by its own authors in Seventh-day Adventism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The above is totally uncalled for.

I am a newbie on Wikipedia.

Even if some of the above diatribe were true, it does not justify including erroneous material in Wikipedia. Either Our Sunday Visitor disowned the 1915 statements in 1917 and 1941 or it did not. Either the 1832 source said "tiara" or it said "miter."

The authentic and accurate quote I provided clearly said "miter." It says nothing about a "tiara." And scans of the 1917 and 1941 statements in question, scans which have been available on the internet for years, clearly show that OSV NEVER stated that VFD was not on the miter. Thus Jtdirl is lying (a venial sin according to his theology) when he makes his claim about the 1832 source and about those 1917 and 1941 issues, and he cannot provide any evidence to the contrary.

In short, this whole situation makes Wikipedia look very, very bad. And something needs to be done about it. As it stands, it calls into question the reliability of Wikipedia's information, and the trustworthiness and objectivity of its editors. --DrPickle 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My theology!!! That just about sums it up. I'm obviously part of a Wikipedia Roman Catholic conspiracy, secretly under orders from Pope Benedict to silence Pickle and his "truth" and force Wikipedia to become Roman Catholic. The actual truth about Pickle can be seen in his Wikpedia edits, almost all if which of it is on the one topic which are simply a rehash of his stuff on his Pickle Publishing website FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, I have never engaged in researching this topic to this depth. I have never read Gregorovius before, and thus did not know that part of the coronation ceremony of the popes was based on the Donation of Constantine. Neither have I ever read Lorenzo Valla's ciritique of the Donation, in which he equates Vicarius Filii Dei with Vicarius Dei. These points are not on my web site, yet.

My website does quote a quote of the 1832 source, which shows Jtdirl's error. I should soon have the original 1832 source on interlibrary loan, and then will be able to provide a scan of it.

I will merely add that, as an adult, I have always been treated with respect by Roman Catholics, laity and priests alike, whether in the U.S., Asia, Europe, or Latin America. Not once do I ever recall them accusing me of being anti-Catholic because of my views on papal supremacy. I therefore think it inappropriate for anyone reading these exchanges to assume that Jtdirl's actions and words reflect the attitudes of Catholics in general. --DrPickle 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution - has been going on for 2 weeks..

Have had difficulty with 2 users. Need help from an arbitrator who can guide me to do make the most effective dispute resolution actions. Contact me for full details, or see my user page. Thanks, Hamsacharya dan 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you use Requests for comment. Another user in this dispute has since (wrongly) accused me of incivility, amongst other things, so I'm not becoming any more involved. Computerjoe's talk 18:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC dispute

An RfC has been put up against me.The person who has put up the RfC wants action to be taken against me for past acts of vandalism committed by me.However I have already been suitably blocked for these offences.My positive edits far outnumber my vandalism.Also,yesterday I was blocked for 24 hours,perhaps so that I would be unable to contest against the RfC.Also a person who has never contacted me before has claimed he has tried to resolve the dispute over my vandalism with me.I request you to view Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prasi90 for more details.Please help me.I am being targetted and harassed.Also view Special:Contributions/Prasi90 Prasi90 12:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution with Striver

I have been undergoing a dispute with User:Striver. The user has already undergone an RFC last July (of which I had not participated because I had not contacted the user at that point). Recently he has been making a variety of articles which I felt were either not notable or violated POV Fork/Fork, thus I listed many of them with AFD tags. The user has since created an RFC on myself claiming that I was "stalking" him. I feel that this is untrue and that the Rfc was solely created to try and stop me from rightfully putting AFD tags on his articles many of which I feel hurt the Wikipedia project. In addition to this, the user has created entire Wikipedia projects with the sole purpose of salvaging his articles from afds, has broken with WP:Civility by cursing at another user, has falsely called vandalism in page history summaries, and has broken with WP:POINT by putting up afd tags on articles for the sole reason of revenge at other posters for putting up an afd tag on his article. I document this all in detail in my response to the RFC. From reading "Dispute Resolution" I understand that disputes should be first tried to be resolved between the parties involved directly, that had failed. From then on there are four options we could take of which an Rfc on the user was taken. This however seems to have failed because as of now this dispute is still active. So from here on we could try Mediation, however I feel that Mediation would not help in this dispute. I feel that the case against this particular user is so aggregious that it warrants either a long-term block or an outright ban and am strongly considering a Request for Arbitration. I would like to have some understanding of what I should do from here and also some further information on how the Arbitration process works. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 23:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki edit war

Over in Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we have a one-against-many edit war going on. A single editor, who originally logged in as user:Parkinsons, but now comes in with varying IP addresses (most recently user:88.106.218.23 keeps adding an identical edit to the article. This edit is several paragraphs long and has its own top-level section heading. The edit has been discussed at great length in the Talk page, and everyone except Parkinsons himself agrees that it is irrelevant, makes no clear point and doesn't belong in the article. At least 7 different editors have either removed Parkinsons' edit at various times or have disagreed with its content in the Talk page. Parkinsons has argued in defense of his edit in the Talk page, but isn't able to do so clearly, much less convincingly. His defenses often consist of telling people who disagree with him that they are biased and are censoring historical fact. It's clear that there is a consensus against his edit, but he seems impervious to appeals to reason.

Parkinsons has vowed to replace this edit 3 times a day, regardless of how often or quickly it is removed. He's held good on this promise for 10 days now.

This person isn't breaking any WP guidelines that I know of. His edit (in its current form) isn't non-neutral, and it's well cited. It is simply irrelevant to the article and makes no point. I'm wondering what, if anything, can be done about this situation. KarlBunker 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove any use of Sockpuppets to avoid possible misuse of the 3 revert rule you could have all users in question blocked on grounds of sockpuppetry and 3RR. Computerjoe's talk 17:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Clay Aiken dispute regarding the John Paulus story

I'm requesting an advocate to help with a situation I've run into on the Clay Aiken page. In my opinion I feel that a handful of his fans have hijacked the page in several instances; firstly they violently refused that any mention be made regarding his sexuality in the article and a compromise was reached only after extensive, extensive argument on their parts. I came into the "fray" when I tried to insert reference to the John Paulus allegations after seeing a report about it on CNN television. My efforts have been greeted by these reactionary fans and I had to request that the page be locked because any edit I attempted to make was immediately reverted. I feel that the majority of those against inclusion of a brief summary of the issue are against it solely because they feel protective of Clay Aiken's reputation and are trying to censor the story. The range of arguments they provide lack merit or substance and I feel that some of them have resorted to sock puppets in order to further their "majority" opinion. While I'm not the only person who feels that the Paulus story belongs on the page (the same as similar stories are on the articles for many other celebrities, many of whom lack even more basis than this one) I'm certainly the most vocal in favor and I wouldn't find the situation so frustrating if I had help. I want to point out my interest in this isn't because I feel the Paulus story is true (I could care less) or because I think Clay Aiken's gay (could also care less). Rather I feel that those who lurk on the article and have argued in both debates do so because they're trying to suppress information that, though extensively available and mentioned even in late night talk shows, they feel tarnishes their "idol." I personally won't stand idly while such a travesty of free speech is perpetrated. - mixvio 03:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly help you, but please understand that the issue here isn't "free speech" (Free speech simply means government cannot punish you for the content of what you say) but rather Wikipedia's goal of including all relevant and verifiable information available on the subjects it covers. 13:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Kurt, I appreciate it. I apologise, when I said free speech I meant it in the sense that the issue is being crushed by fans of Clay Aiken's who are pushing a very stubborn POV goal to disregard the story because they feel like it tarnishes his image. Any attempt to insert this story has been destroyed by these fans and I feel that they've hijacked the article and are completely censoring it. I truly feel that there wouldn't be so much opposition to inclusion if Paulus had been a woman, frankly. The article is being controlled by POV fan editors and that's what I meant when I said free speech. But all the same, thank you for the help, we need it! :) - mixvio 20:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As a non-biased non-fan, I have to note that this characterization of Mixvio's crusade is a little skewed. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

WZTV, Nashville, Tenn. (television station)

A user has taken it upon himself to refuse my referral to a more reputable source concerning the year in which WZTV, a FOX television station in Nashville, Tenn., was started. He has complained that I have repeatedly changed his date of 1968, which I did because the date is not accurate (my source: www.nashvilletv.org); it is rather 1969. He espoused an arrogant attitude when I informed him that the operators of the site I recommended were more likely to have knowledge of the fact at first hand, dismissing my recommendations. I think he utterly disregards the warning not to submit work unless he wishes it "mercilessly edited;" that is, he wants complete control over this article, something noboby, myself included, has a right to demand. I suspect he is eligible to be banned in some way, but I would like to know if it is even feasible to pursue this. Mtstroud, 20:05, 6 March 2006, (UTC)

• I don't understand the angle of disregard or disrespect. The site Mtstroud cites, nashvilletv.org, I have collaborated on in the past. Unfortunately, in this instance, there are other internet sources that suggest its date of 1969 is inaccurate. This one speaks of an employee of the station that appeared on-air as early as October 1968. There is also this site, which I first cited as a reference, which shows 8/5/68 as the sign-on. I'm sorry that the discussion on this article came to an AMA Request for assistance. If there was any disrespect toward Mtstroud, it was certainly not intended. --Zpb52 07:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is discussion on my talk page. It appears that the issue may be resolved by discussion. Robert McClenon 13:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I now stand corrected. Please disregard my request above. I will make amends also to Zpb52 and will not make any more modifications to that page. Mtstroud, 12:09 CST, 7 March 2006

Continued Factual References, Concerningly Uncivil Behavior

I have a dispute with a user who continually asserts information that is either biased, unreferenced or factually untrue. He becomes extremely hostile when I raise these concerns. My attempts to engage in civil discussion have met with extremely resistance and blatant hostility (e.g. statements such as "stop bugging me", "this is my talk page and I do not reply if you vandalise it"). His behavior towards other Wikipedians is also concerning and rude. I indicated that I would direct our continued discussion to the AMA, but he does not want to engage in the mediation process, as he does not believe that a problem exists. Unfortunately, the mediation process is voluntary. I believe that his behavior warrants some kind of administrative review, but I am not completely intimate with the judicial processes of Wikipedia. Advice would be appreciated. Exaltare 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Politicisation of Death Article

A small group of users continues to list abortion as a cause of death in the Death article, though abortion is not considerered a statistical death outside of decidedly pro-life organisations. This is clearly an attempt to use a NPOV article as a political tool.

In the discussion pages I have patiently tried to explain that a list of statistics is reserved for factual statements only, to no avail. The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin 18:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How might an advocate help you? Pedant 04:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass Media

Hopefully, this is the right place. A professor is using the Mass Media page as a class project, where basically, the entire class can throw whatever they wish into the article...here's an excerpt from a previous version of the page

The Roy C. Ketcham Media Writing class is creating the media history timeline below as a class project - we have used The Media History Project at http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/index2.html as a starting point for our information. The entries below are made by individual students

I'm all for being bold...but the page is constantly filled with information that doesn't pertain to wikipedia standards, such as explanations as to why the typewriter

What is it you wish an advocate to do? You are entirely welcome to edit the page in question to correct any misinformation or remove unencyclopedic material... but if you need assistance, please let us know what it is you need. Pedant 05:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia on Wikipedia

I feel as though an article which I have contributed to, relating to GLBT issues has been flamed by certain members because of its gay/lesbian/bisexual content. I could do with a bit of help from an advocate who would be willing to help resolve this matter before it gets any worse; the majority of the article was there before I even edited it, and did contain one slightly objective statement which i chose not to edit- primarily because I didn't write it.

I have removed the offending comment, which seems to have been blamed on me but I would like someone to assess the situation, as I feel there is an underlying theme of homophobia regarding it. GYUK

--Ludo 19:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What article? Pedant

Is there an advocate with courage, given public boasts of being able to murder people

Is there an advocate with courage, willing to monitor and correct the ongoing criminal fraud by hired goons for President Bush's friend and contributor Patricia Cornwell? W. Guy Finley at first volunteered, but then wimped out, quite understandably because of Cornwell's public boasts that she can have people murdered, combined with court documents proving Cornwell has gotten away with felony crimes under US gov't protection. Finley asked some curious questions, then backed away with a silly suggestion to try and contact filmmaker Michael Moore for further assistance, declining to answer further e-mails.

The Cornwell hired goons are not only maintaining a totally fake and fraudulent pro-Cornwell biography on Wikipedia, but are also using the page for a fraudulent and deceptive attack on Cornwell's biographer Sachs. See the online "Patricia Cornwell Biography: Crime, Bribery, Scandal and Mental Illness", for the facts about Cornwell's life that Cornwell's thugs are hiding. Cornwell's scandals are well documented in print documents from the pre-internet era, though Cornwell's political contributions have insulated and protected her among the corporate media that now controls general discourse in the US. Alternative media are afraid to write about her criminal scandals, given Cornwell's past success in criminal attacks on others who dared to question her.

Wikipedia moderators have timidly and slightly corrected the fraudulent material in the past, but the Cornwell hired goons just wait a little and then put their bogus material back online.

The question here is whether Wikipedia is oriented toward wealthy criminals who can afford to hire staff maintaining fraudulent Wikipedia pages and attacks on others. Does a victim have no recourse other than in engaging in daily posting combat on Wikipedia? When wealthy criminals hire staff to make fraudulent attacks on Wikipedia, is the victim thereby sentenced to monitor Wikipedia every day for the rest of his life, just to protect himself?

Wikipedia seems to be a significant fraud and failure, oriented to benefit wealthy criminals. It's quite hard for a new victim, who is not oriented to playing the "Wikipedia game", to even figure out where to post complaints of abuse, as if the Lords of Wikipedia are trying to make it hard for victims. Victims find pages warning them not to post complaints here, or here, or warnings of other Wikipedia "rules", without clear directions where else to go. Wikipedia treats victims as if they have signed up for the Wikipedia game, when they perhaps just want to stop Wikipedia being used for criminal purposes against them.

What article? What is wrong with it? Member advocates don't ordinarily monitor articles, but if you tell us what problem you are having, with what article or editor or editors, one of us might be able to give you some advice on what you could do to solve the 'fraud' or whatever it is. Pedant

Need Help with dispute resolution

For the past month, me and another user have been going back and forth about the contents of an article, UGOPlayer, and it has resulted in an edit war. It has gone through individual attempts to agree, a deletion attempt, a 3rd opinion which was accepted by the party that did not ask for the 3rd opinion, but not by the one who did, and is presently filed for mediation over the content. I was wondering if there was anyone who would be willing to provide advice for me throughout the process of mediation, and be able to better put arguments into words for me? I apologize if this seems awkward or something. Sbloemeke 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Small Issue about Article writing

I have been enjoying wikipedia and began to notice stubs about past companies, and mildly famous friends of mine popping up. I had begun to mildly contribute to stubs and thought it would be nice to add an article for me. I am not Madonna, but I have done quite a bit of work in the design world. I wrote a small piece (unfinished) about some of my schooling a few collections I have done. My work for Betsey Johnson, Triple five Soul, Akademiks, PRPS, Candies, Kelly Clarkson, The Gorrillaz, Eric West, Koneko (my old band boy george likes) etc. and before I knew it (minutes) an administrator had erased the whole thing (after I noted it was unfinished). Thinking I just needed to link it to some of the other stubs I began to do that and reload it. But then I was told I would not be allowed to edit anymore for doing so. I find this hostile. It is one thing to just write "hi im rob and I have a big thumb", but I am a little known designer, and just thought it would be nice to share my info, especially being from Ohio.... I figure it might be neat for kids to see you CAN become something NOW and go somewhere. My impression of Wikipedia is the ability to offer randomn & valid information that would be hard to find otherwise. say the guy who picked the alligator for Lacoste, or the person who invented Aqua net. I understand that is could be considered tacky to write about oneself, and I could easily hire someone to do it......but I just thought it would be fine.

Anyhow I just found the reply to be hostile and rude, especially since I was writing a professional and responsible piece. I am not Madonna, but I assumed being linked to all these people and doing valid work makes it ok? ( I was not trying to do some myspace type profile) I have noted the forum for being listed and I do fall under.....

1. Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers

Anyway Here was the conversation and reply:

"

Please stop recreating deleted articles or you will be blocked from editing. --W(t) 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read the afforementioned article. I find being more well known than a professor to be a bit of a strange concept. I can't think of any famous professors offhand. But I sure can find other people mentioned on here that I have no knowledge of. I feel that this action is a bit hostile... especially after noting that the article is unfinished.

I have found the following:

1. Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers

Which I have done. and as stated I planned to finish the article. ( My Work has been presented in VICE magazine, Elle girl, Teen Vogue, numerous publications of Fader, and Complex, etc. and I will be happy to show tears verifying this.) It is also published on billboards for akademiks, prps is worn by the gorillaz (a band) for their videos, and is currently being requested by Eric West, among other names. Is this not enough?

Also. I have styled Kelly Clarkson for Candies ads.

ALSO. I contributed work to the band Koneko, Who has a cd out (Yes I doubt it has sold 50,000 copies), BUT it is an interest of Theo of the Luna chicks, and Moby. And Boy George himself has expressed enthusiasm in the band. Is this not enough?

I have also noted. this article located under "autobiography"

2. "It is a social faux pas to write about yourself", according to Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder. [1] You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

I can easily hire someone else to write it for me if that is all that is required. I know certain other "famed" people on here who have done so.

Finally, personally, I would be interested in knowing who chose to stick the Crocodile on a lacoste shirt. Who Chanel's right hand girl was. Or who invented Aqua Net. I thought the point of Wikipedia was valid & randomn information. Not having to be Madonna in order to plant a flag. I planned to finish my small piece in a professional manner, as I started.

If Wikipedia does not desire my profile that is fine. Thank you. Joshua S. Amos

ps. you CAN also google some of my work."

I guess I was just curious as to if I am way out of line for putting this up. Or If there is just hostility in the wikipedia environment. I just did not realize the amount of notoriety necessary to be in wikipedia? If I am out of line I apologize. Thanks, Josh xtruthlovex

Josh, Wikipedia has a rule about not including your original research, but you could reference other people's research for your article. It's not generally good form to write an article about yourself, but if you make an article that is encyclopedic, well researched and well referenced, it's possible to write about almost any subject. Try writing a few articles on other people first, to get the hang of it, and wait a while on the Joshua Amos article. Maybe someone else will start one in the meantime. Pedant 05:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Assitance with Opie and Anthony page

I have been trying to edit out the rampant disinformation being spread about the radio hosts Opie and Anthony. The lack of attention to verifiable facts seems to mark all of these edits. I would appreciate any and all assistance in controlling this obvious smear campaign against the popular satellite radio broadcasters. Please reference XM Satellite Radio history vs Sirius Satellite Radio history to see the difference in Wiki Encyclopedic Article vs Advertisement. Also reference Howard Stern article vs Opie and Anthony article. You will immediately see the difference, it is astounding the amount of advertising and POV that is going on in these entries. (Countzer 04:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Request for Assitance with Persians page

We need an advocate to help/represent our case on Persian people and Mediation/Persians. The details of the case have been fully explained on Mediation/Persians and Talk:Persian_people. --ManiF 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Help Needed to Ban a User Aucaman

Dear admin, User:Aucaman chronically participates in repeatedly violating the 3rr policy, placing numerous dispute tags on articles, [unstoppable] possible sneaky vandalism, repeated violation of the personal attack policy by referring to multiple users as `racist` and other, going against the over-whelming consensus, refusing to compromise, and single-handedly hijacking this and two more articles. He has been engaged in a systematic campaign of misinformation, maliciously editing/disputing Persian people, pushing his POV, ignoring the majority consensus and authoritative sources, trying to establish new 'facts" based on his own personal assumptions, political beliefs, and racist comments. [16] He also repeatedly engages in racially-motivated personal attacks and possibly vandalizes the Persian people article which has resulted in the protection of page. Seemingly, he has single-handedly disrupted the integrity of the page in question, and perhaps other articles too. Furthermore, he is a chronic 3RR violator, but also violates other wikipedia rules by vandalizing and then removing warnings from his talk-page. [17] Would you please take a look at this issue and help us clean up the Persian people page? Please take a look at ( Talk:Persian people & Mediation/Persian_people ). ThanksZmmz 05:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If he violates the WP:3RR policy, report him on WP:AN/3RR. WP:AN is generally a very useful place for such conduct. With regards to him removing notices, revert it and warn the user not to do it. I permenant ban isn't possible at this time- the user has not even been had a temporary ban once, and I do not see excessive amounts of warnings on the user talk page.

If the user violates a policy, warn them against it. Keep doing that and everything will be OK. Contact me if you need any help with any of the above. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter F. Paul article and the sock puppets

I have gotten into a morass with a user who goes by the name User: Franklyn2 or sock puppet accounts, including User: 24.196.167.104. I have tried to be fair and have devoted a huge amount of time to finding old newspaper and magazine articles as sources for the wikipedia page, as well as viewing multiple home movies that Franklyn2 has posted to the web, supposedly backing his views.

He has taken this badly, accuses me of being part of a conspiracy run by Bill Clinton, calls me some very nasty names on the discussion page, and massacres the text of the page with editorialization and, in some cases, fabrications (not to mention bad spelling).

Help? Uucp 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Article Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites

This a very controversial thesis and the article is extremely NPOV supporting this radical thesis except the first paragraph. The idea that the Lost Tribes of Israel even exist is controversial in itself!

This page is not edited often and so I don't think anybody will defend it. I have put a controverisal template and a POV-check template on the page but I'm not sure what to do next, especially if nobody defends the article.

Thank you in advance for your assistance! Karmak

Help with an IP editor

I've been trying to reason with an IP editor. I keep explaining to him/her that claims made in Wikipedia articles needs to be verified, and in response s/he accuses me of not getting "the facts straight." Could someone please explain to this user that if s/he just sources her edits, this whole problem will go away? Thanks! --M@rēino 17:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in the midst of a discussion

Seriously, how are we supposed to DISCUSS on Talk-Pages, when my very arguments there are being vandalised. Still, some still dispute my arguments for being "false quotes", but when I back them up with FULL REFERENCES, my edit is repeatedly reverted. (Again, on the TALK-PAGE, the very place where we are supposed to discuss that). I'm waiting for an approval to revert again to my edits. Hope you'll provide me one. Here is a link to the questionable revert [18]. Thank you in advance. Zadil 00:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Global Warming" article problems

Request "adult supervision" or assistance with the Global Warming, global warming controversy, and other, related pages. It appears that a "cabal" (my description), of human-induced global warming theory advocates have basically "hijacked" the associated articles. They immediately delete (censor?) any edits, no matter how benign, that attempt to make the articles more neutral. Their participation in the discussions on the Discussion pages borders on bullying. Unfortunately, one of them is even listed as a Wikipedia administrator! A reading of the Discussion page will quickly reveal some very frustrated community members who don't want to censor their views, but to merely place them in articles that present them in a more balanced and neutral manner. Please help! Cla68 16:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Archived requests

For older requests, see Archives: 1 2 3 4 5

{{helpme}}