Wikipedia:Wikipediology/library/AMA/RArchive-1

See AMA Requests for Assistance for current requests, and for placing a new request, for Members' Advocacy.

This is an archive of advocacy requests made between June 2004 through the end of September 2004.

ELISEcorinn re Poetry
i'm sorry to complain but i'm worried about the poetry page. what is on there is completely un-appropriate and in no way describes poetry. i'm sure that that page could be better, but i don't know enough about poetry to do anything about it. please, someone, FIX THE POETRY PAGE!!! -User:ELISEcorinn
 * I think you didn't understand what the AMA is for. The AMA is not aplace for making correcting requests (the Poetry page maybe doesn't show poetry). This place is to request assistance in disputes with (an)other user(s). Sorry, this isn't the right place. -Neigel von Teighen 17:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gene Ward Smith vs. Truth seeker and Simplebrain
After seeing some requests for review, I've gotten into editing conflicts with two different people with what I would characterize as a crank perspective. One is Modern geocentrism by user:Truth seeker. Truth seeker apparently believes, on the basis of his understanding of the Bible, that the Earth is the center of the universe and reverts things to his liking to eliminate critical perspectives. An erudite recent version by user:Charles Matthews seems to me a better basis for an article, and I corrected some spelling errors and reverted to it, but Truth seeker evidently does not like how it deals with some of the arguments in favor of geocentrism. I think some accomodation with Truth seeker needs to be found, and would like help.

Even more difficult is another user, user:Simplebrain who will not accept any article on Science of Value which is not simply a cult-like puff piece for Robert S. Hartman. Simplebrain wants to claim this so-called "science" is based on an axiom and that it proceeds deducitively from this axiom, and at the same time, strangely enough, that it proceeds inductively from data. Neither is true; Hartman is, or was, a philosopher of dubious credentials who did not understand the mathematical vocabularly he insisted on using, and whose key idea is that "a thing is good if it fulfills its definition." Simplebrain does not seem interested in talking to the rest of us on the talk page for this article. Gene Ward Smith 05:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have made contact with this user. Wally 22:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Spinboy re VfD on Students' Society of McGill University
I created the article Students' Society of McGill University after seeing quite a few listings in the Category:United Kingdom Students' Unions and created other articles myself. Now it's being voted on for deletion. I don't agree with this as there are many other articles, not created by me, on students unions. I'd appreciate some help. Thank you. Spinboy 20:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * For the record, this article survived VfD. The advocacy guidelines do not mention article advocacy in VfD. I would argue that this is not an appropriate duty for a member's advocate. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 01:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that is a good issue to consider when deciding if advocacy work is appropriate when people list their disputes here. We can help people who have problems understanding the dispute resolution process or who need someone who can help them articulate their position when dealing with other members who may have more experience; so it is important to make sure that within some request for acting as some kind of mediator there is not also a request just to help the individual with understanding the process or what they are trying to acheive, that, IMHO, is within the balliwick of advocacy here. Remember someone is reaching out to our association because they can't figure out how to do it themselves, so even a little informal communication may be very helpful to them without some declaration of full "advocacy" status on their behalf. Your coordinator. &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   06:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Maurreen vs. unknown
Are member advocates used outside the formal dispute resolution proces? If not, is there anywhere else I can get help while my patience is being tested? One way or another, I need help with another user. It is one conflict after another. Probably unintentionally, it seems like he has followed me. Please help me. Thank you. Maurreen 08:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing request, at least for now: Another user, not an advocate, saw my frustration elsewhere and is trying to help. I will see how that works out and withdraw my request for the time being at least. Thank you. Maurreen 08:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems that the guidelines for advocacy are loose enough to potentially be involved at even the earliest stages of the dispute process, though I would think that the formal processes would be the most appropriate for advocacy. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 01:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Michael Glass vs. Robert the Bruce
I am trying to make a positive contribution to Medical Analysis of Circumcision. However, almost all my edits are reverted by Robert the Bruce. I have attempted to discuss issues on the talk page and this has worked on some points. However, this user is becoming more and more offensive. Please advise.Michael Glass 06:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Michael's comment. In my opinion there are three points of disagreement in the article:
 * the introduction
 * Winkelmann and Taylor articles
 * Bensley/Boyle survey
 * Please advise us on how to deal with someone who shows little interest in resolving the conflict over what should be included. -- DanBlackham 22:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This page is for the purpose of requesting an advocate to assist you with your side of a particular dispute. See Guide to Advocacy. This is not the same as a request for mediation. A member can represent you or assist you in your actions to resolve a dispute, but we are not mediators. If you would like the assistance of an Advocate, you may feel free to conatct me on my talk page or email me through my user page link. If you feel you have requested the wrong thing, I would suggest you read over the Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guidelines. Either way, best of luck to you. Skyler1534 22:26, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

20040302 vs. Atreus et al
There is (once more) a dispute arising at Talk:Atheism. I am satisfied that multiple POVs should brought into the article, but some regulars such as Adraeus and Bryan et al. are particularly interested in brow-beating the issue. Particularly, I find remarks such as "Sorry, bub. You're wrong." particularly intolerant of POVs that differ from their author. Last time the issue was raised, there was just one voice (Sam Spade in a glove puppet) who disagreed with them, and his viewpoint was considered solitary. Now there is a multiplicity of views and arguments, that appear to be split on the issue of whether or not atheism/theism is an exclusive dichotomy. My position regarding the article is that both POV (exclusive/non-exclusive) are legitimate views, but I have been told by Atreus "If you edit the article to suit your view, I'll consider your edit vandalism and act appropriately." Help! (20040302 16:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC))
 * I don't think you actually understand what you have requested, 20040302. Take a look at this page. Andre ( talk )A| 17:03, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Whats this bit about glove puppets? I hope your not suggesting I have a Sockpuppet? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sneitzke re Direct democracy
See request immediately below. No need to followup. Mr. Combat ran in another mental pygmy, who took charge of my unruly self and inept material. I'm confident that there's no explaining to that pair that POV is the natural consequent of countering fallacious and sophistic criticisms of direct democracy, that the only alternative is treating the fallacies and sophisms as if they are logical and reasonable. The mental pygmies insist on treating the fallacies and sophisms with decency and respect. It's what mental pygmies are good for. I won't be back. : Sneitzke 11:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * IMO we cannot operate under the assumption that POV is inevitable, even in advocacy efforts. Comments? - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 01:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm new. I'd like an advocate to look in on the "Direct Democracy" article. I'm having a conflict with "Stevietheman", whose ego I've unfortunately punctured. After reading several of your pages to get started, I had this mistaken notion that I would run into community members who would be helpful and respectful. Instead, I've got Mr. Combat. I think we might be in a revert war. (I just hate being bitch-slapped by ignorant people.) I'm good in combat, but I get bored quickly. I've just no need for it. Direct Democracy has been my avocation for over 11 years -- on top of dual phil/hist majors at Univ Calif Santa Barbara and four decades of reading history and politics. I've had a web site dedicated to international DD up since March 1998, with a large volume of DD email from round the world throughout those years. I'm used to talking DD stuff. I might hang around to figuratively kick some more snot out of Mr. Combat, but I won't bother your community much longer. I really do have some nice things to do. stephen@ddleague-usa.net : Sneitzke 09:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Just a note here. I have been involved in the dispute and have begun an attempt at reconciling the old version of the page with the new version, which breaks NPOV rules but contains substantial new material.  I hope that this may resolve any dispute. Barnaby dawson 09:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pmetzger re Anarchist symbolism
I'm having trouble over on the Anarchist_symbolism page. There only appear to be about three of us actively involved in editing it at the moment, and we're not exactly in agreement about one section (on an anarchocapitalist symbol) but we've been working our dispute out peacefully in the talk page so far as I can tell, and are indeed converging on a consensus. In the last 24 hours, however, an anonymous user has repeatedly altered or removed the section he apparently doesn't like. I've been forced to revert it twice and I'm worried that this will escalate. I don't quite know what to do as I have no way of contacting the anonymous person and they do not appear to be participating in the talk page discussion. What should I do? Getting into a revert war seems totally counterproductive. --Pmetzger 15:24, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This situation has been peacefully resolved (hopefully) after the consensus on the talk page is to move the anarchocapitalist symbol to its own page. In any case, the only unreasonable party in this dispute was the anon, who seems to be no longer active. &bull; Benc &bull; 00:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FWBOarticle vs. Adam Carr re White Australia Policy
I'm requesting an adovocate over article White Australia Policy to deal with User:Adam_Carr. I just noticed that similar request is made against Adam Carr in this page. FWBOarticle 17:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dispute appear to be subsided. Thanks. FWBOarticle 07:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Walabio vs. Dwindrim re VfD on Genital Integrity and Intact Day (?)
Dear Members of Association of Members' Advocates:

Denni &#9775; listed to of my articles for deletion. When I asked why, I received this response:


 * ¿What do you have against Genital Integrity and Intact Day?


 * Nothing, except the high-pitched shrieking of those who believe that having one's foreskin removed is like having one's brain removed. I have seen you before, Walabio, and all I can say is that I hope I never find myself so one-track-minded on an issue as you. While I am neutral in the circumcision debate, I see intact Day as a huge joke (what are you going to do - wave your foreskin about?). Neither of these articles is acceptable for Wikipedia, either because they are (genital integrity) a neologism, and (Intact Day), a singularly unrecognised celebration. Did you not bother to read my comments? Denni &#9775; 23:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Denni &#9775; seems biased against Intactivism, and maybe me.

&#364;alabio 00:15, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Eric Walberg re Anti semitism
Dear mediator,

First let me commend everyone involved on a generally excellent reference aid. I just found Wikipedia and have found it on the whole balanced in presentation. Unfortunately, the entry on anti-semitism http://www.fact-index.com/a/an/anti_semitism_1.html is misleading and more harm than help. I have checked the procedure for criticizing articles, found the talk pages and realized this is such a contentious topic it requires mediation. I am sending you a few points for consideration.

I will make three points, though the whole entry is problematic.

1. Anti-semitism is a late 19th c term, which the article admits, but then applies to the entire 2000 years of anti-Jewish sentiment. It is no coincidence that it arose at the same time as semitism and Zionism, the former referring to Jewish ideas or influence in politics or society, the latter to the Jewish nationalist movement aimed at establishing a Jewish state. Jewish influence and assimilation in Europe increased dramatically with the consolidation of capitalism, and Zionism (anti-assimilationism) was a major cause of this new phenomenon ANTI-semitism. Anti-semitism, which ironically was coined in 1880, BEFORE semitism, originally referred to a belief in Jewish racially inferiority (clearly in reaction to belief in Jewish racial superiority), but has now been transformed into "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary), i.e., equating it with anti-Zionism. Zionism is a blatantly racist dotrine as opposed to a merely nationalist one, and it is no surprise that as Europe became more secular and opened itself to the Jews, this racist strain inJewish thought PROVOKED a negative reaction.

2. There is no reference to the REAL sources of anti-Jewish sentiment ***through the ages***: this inherent racism of Judaism (the Chosen People doctrine), and the Talmud, which among other shocking things describes Jesusas the anti-Christ and Satan and glories in the belief that Jews indeed are responsible for killing Christ. A list of the many anti-Christian (anti-human) doctrines of the Talmud would require a volume in itself.

3. Christianity had very good reason to REACT AGAINST Jewish customs and activity right from the start. And many reputable historians would argue that outbursts of persecution of Jews in history have everything to do with machinations by Jews themselves, causing a reactionary against them, rather than an ingrained tendency towards racism by non-Jews. This is n fact the history of anti-Jewish prejudice for at least 2000 years. Again, a volume is needed here! Medieval Spain and England and the 19th c Ottoman empire are egregious examples of Jews gaining a financial stranglehold and suffering the consequences.

This unbalanced presentation of a very delicate issue feeds a dangerous misunderstanding of the role of Jews in their host societies at a time when the world is descending rapidly into world war prompted in the view of many authorities (including the likes of Finkelstein and Chomsky) by the actions of Israel.

It is telling that in other articles dealing with Jewish matters (Schneerson, anti-Zionism) the entries are qualified with "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Curiously the entry on anti-semitism is BOTH protected and free of this qualification, though I see there is at least some discussion going on the talk page. I'm not interested in engaging in online polemics, and I understand this issue is perhaps the most explosive in Wikipedia, but I see no reason why 'the other side' should not be fairly presented, even if the pro-Jewish POV gets the final word. Can you suggest how to proceed? Thanks.

Yours truly,

Eric Walberg eric@albatros.uz

PS I tried to register at Wikipedia as Walberg1 but I find the system very confusing and I don't know if my page functions properly. Please contact me by email. Thanks. ^^^^^^^^^


 * This is not a forum to request mediation. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 01:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky vs. Adam Carr re Lyndon Larouche
I am requesting assistance with respect to an edit war over article Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche is undoubtably an unusually controversial person; I began editing an article that had obviously been subject to many, many edits already. I was scrupulous about acknowledging the controversy, and the existence of opposing viewpoints; I concentrated on addressing outright falsehood, or dubious assertions made without documentation.

The problem began when User:Adam_Carr simply eliminated the article, and posted a new one, which is a fanatical attack, and would be considered libelous back in the days when libel laws were taken seriously. He simultaneously proclaimed his intention to pursue a revert war. He was supported in this by User:John_Kenney, who also took the position that no article should be permitted that was not a full-on character assassination.

As soon as I reached the conclusion that Adam would not discuss, only revert (it appears that he has an history of this approach to disputes), I posted a request for mediation. The page (Adam's version) was protected by User:Mirv on June 21. Both Adam and John refused mediation.

In subsequent discussion, John (who is a sysop) became somewhat more open to negotiation, but has not participated now for several days. Adam has indicated that he has no intention of negotiating anything.

A week has gone by, and I feel that the page as presently protected is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I would like to explore other avenues to resolve this conflict.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:51, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to help, but my internet is nonfunctioning at home and I want to set someone up (or at least see a conclusion) to the Newberry-Terjapetersen thing. If I can offer preliminary assistance (if sporadic assistance), I'd be happy to do so. Wally 15:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FWBOarticle vs anon re Friends of the Western Buddhist Order
I am requesting assistance with dealing with people who is keep delating my section of an article.

The article is about a New Religious Movement called "Friends of Western Buddhist Order" (FWBO) which is pretty much unknown in u.s.a but is quite big in u.k. The writer of the main section of the article is a member of FWBO. I have inserted a collection of links which is critical to the organisation. This said member is keep deleting my section. He appear to do this every time he see my section being up. It also appear that another FWBO member has joined in. I certainly do not have stamina to undeleting my section if members of FWBO start to police the site. FWBOarticle 12:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I and Mahabala is close to reaching a consensus. However, another user "Nobody" is simply deleting my section without trying much to get into discussion. I do not wish the page to become protected as lot can be improved. So can anyone reason with this guy? FWBOarticle 00:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry vs User:Terjepetersen
I am requesting assistance with dealing with User:Terjepetersen. My POV on this:

The example articles are supply side economics and the gold standard.

1. Poster entered with the express intent to only write his POV. 2. Poster was inaccurate even with respect to his own POV. 3. Poseter's contributions are solely to his own POV. 4. Poster complains that anything other than his POV is not correct. 5. Poster engages in editing wars to slant articles to his POV 6. Poster will not discuss, but instead takes a high handed and arrogant approach. 7. Poster cannot be trusted not to continually add more POV filligree to articles, often leading to repetative statements which require repetative balancing. 8. Poster then complains about the repetition and even vandalizes articles.

I will also state for the record that I am fed up with his childish and obnoxious behavior, and the crassness with which he engages in it. Good will is important, this poster violates this basic idea.

Stirling Newberry 14:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm contacting relevant parties on this matter and bringing it to the attention of those involved, if I may be so bold. :P Wally 20:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)