Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 17

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

User:BrandonYusufToropov and User:Ed Poor

specifics moved off this space by Ed Poor - and maybe that's part of the problem. Would another mediator than me, please re-insert & properly format this RFM? Thanks. -- Uncle Ed (talk)

I've asked Improv to take a look at this [1]. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

What's the status of my RfM concerning Ed Poor?

Either I've missed an email (entirely possible, since I get quite a lot) or one of the two parties in this dispute is foot-dragging. Please help.

Since I filed this RfM, there have been multiple unauthorized edits by Ed of my userpage, which Ed now claims was unintentional.

I have reasons to doubt his sincerity on such matters, since he deleted half of my complaint in transferring it to a talk page.

He then attempted to edit the material related to this matter that I placed on my userpage.

I wish to pursue the RfM even if he does not. He is now moving on to other matters on WP, which is fine, as long as this is one of them.

If I've missed an e-mail message on this, please accept my apologies.

Many thanks for any help you can provide. You can find more background on this complaint at my userpage. (assuming Ed hasn't vandalized it while I wasn't looking). BrandonYusufToropov 14:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See my note, just above your comment, I've asked an mediator to look into it, but it may be a while before they respond as they may have other things to do during the weekend. Please give the mediator a little more time to respond. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

- Concluded amicably. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

User:Maveric149 and User:Jguk

I have tried to list 2005 English cricket season (8-30 April) on WP:PR. However, instead of making constructive comments on improving the article, Maveric149 has added a long comment on transclusion. Long comments such as these put people off making other more constructive comments, so I removed them and asked him to desist from arguing the merits and demerits of transclusion on the Peer Review page, and instead allow positive, constructive comments to be made. He has refused - leading me to remove the page from Peer Review as it would effectively be a complete waste of time for it to remain there. I wish to ask for mediation with a view to Maveric149 allow the article to pass through Peer Review without comments from him, jguk 21:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've asked jguk, if he can think of alternative ways to structure the article since use of subpages in the article namespace is discouraged. Mgm|^(talk) 17:39, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

User:Baxter3 vs User:SlimVirgin regarding page vandalism and 3RR Violations on William White (agitator)

I was asked for source for my articles and provided an extensive list of over 100 of them. User SlimVirgin keeps deleting this list and reverting to her heavy POV non-sourced changes, despite by efforts to respond to criticism by adding and improving the citations. Further, she abusively cites Wikipedia policies and complains of violations when I remove her vandalisms -- claims have been things like "if a news article is not on the internet, you cannot cite it" and other nonsensical complaints. I am not the only Wikipedia user who has removed her page vandalism. Page in dispute is William White (agitator). I am a relatively new user and am not 100% sure how mediation works. I am also having trouble getting my computer to not delete the Wikipedia cookie, so I am getting periodically logged out. 68.10.35.153 01:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've informed User:SlimVirgin of the request. Mgm|^(talk) 20:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Dylan: (User:Monicasdude vs. User:JDG)

User JDG is repeatedly reverting an edit I made to this page today, seems to have been systematically removing or rewriting my recent edits, and has announced on talk page that he will revert any contributions I make in the future unless I comply with his demand for "statement-by-statement" pre-review. User JDG refuses to cite any errors or policy violations in edits. Edit to which he he takes particular exception today involved correction of a surprisingly large number of factual errors over which there is no genuine dispute -- e.g., members of Dylan's band at first electric concerts, where Zimmerman family lived when Robert was born -- the rearrangement of discussion of events into chronological order, the elimination of lengthy quotes from (copyrighted) lyrics without substantive discussion, and the elimination of a few digressions (e.g., discussion of whether name "Zimmerman" sounds German). A few sweeping historical generalizations that were at best very, very dubious were removed -- e.g., an entire generation of Americans did not memorize "Subterranean Homesick Blues." (Judging by his live performances, neither did Dylan, but that's a different point . . .)
It's not appropriate for a single user to set himself as a de facto page moderator/administrator and establish his own review policies.

User: Monicasdude 3:29 PM EST 30 May 2005

This dispute has apparently ended (at least for now); I don't know the protocol for removing the request. Monicasdude 16:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus

I would like to request mediation for an ongoing revert war over the subject of whether dates on this article should use the conventional BC/AD format or the BCE/CE alternative. This revert war has been waging for several days with several users, especially User:slrubenstein violating 3RR. At present the dispute centers over a proposed change by User:JimWae to alter the BC/AD dating system to BCE/CE. JimWae, slrubenstein, and some of the other editors argue that BC/AD is non NPOV since the dating system is based on the life of Christ, although Wikipedia Manual of Style says that it is perfectly acceptable. JimWae's proposed change currently lacks consensus among editors on the article's talk page and a vote started after an RfC yesterday shows a majority of editors are against the change. Those opposed to JimWae's change currently lead the vote by 12 to 9 and have consistently led since it was started. A small group of editors in favor of the change including the two aforementioned persons has nevertheless insisted upon implementing it in the article, leading to an endless revert war with editors who are trying to keep the article as it was with the BC/AD date system. Several requests of them to abstain from doing so until a consensus is reached in the discussion page have been ignored. User:slrubenstein has engaged in particularly abusive posting habits including several personal attacks on editors who have voted against the change for simply voting among other things. Any help at mediating this dispute would be greatly appreciated. Rangerdude 02:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do all parties agree to mediation? -SV|t 00:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo

I would like to request mediation between myself and User:gcessor, who also goes by the IP 71.32.81.48 in regards to the article Iglesia ni Cristo. User:gcessor has taken it upon himself to continuously delete a link questioning the Iglesia ni Cristo's teachings while User:LBMixPro, a sysop has said that it could stand. He has no respect or deference for the rules of the Wikipedia and has made personal attacks on me and LBMixPro on the discussion page. I would be grateful for anyone's help mediating the dispute before this conflict escalates. Sincerely, --Onlytofind 04:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I for one believe that Onlytofind's edits unfairly put the INC in a bad light, and that gcessor has taken great efforts to put this article to near-NPOV, as opposed to Onlytofind's. You can check the article history to verify this. Just wanted you to know that there's always two sides to a story. Yes, a mediation is clearly needed here. Ealva 03:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Onlytofind insists on including a link to www.thebereans.net, a "con" site that "exposes" the INC. The problem is that the Bereans' site is already linked to in the "forum" list and contains a hyperlink on that page. IMO it is redundant to have both links to the same general site. Furthermore, there is only one actual "pro" site (more are not allowed per Church Administration instructions), whereas Onlytofind insists on having four "con" sites. I feel this is completely out of step with most Wikipedia sites describing religions - I have yet to find a Wikipedia site where the number of "con" sites is even equal with the number of "pro" sites, much less four "con" sites to only one actual "pro" site. Lastly, Onlytofind claims that I have made personal attacks on him - but when I requested that he show me where I have done so, he will not provide any such proof (which is because I have made NO such personal attacks - I challenge anyone to show me where I have done so!). Please do mediate and show us where NPOV is violated, particularly in comparison to other non-disupted Wikipedia sites describing religions.gcessor--71.32.81.48 14:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, I would like to see three resolutions:
- (1) Whether the site as it presently stands is NPOV, or biased for or against the INC as compared to other undisputed Wikipedia sites on religions.
- (2) Whether it is right for the "con" section to have three or four times as many links as the number of links (1) in the "pro" site - again, as compared to other undisputed Wikipedia sites on religions.
- (3) Whether I have ever used insulting language against anyone, including [Onlytofind]]. gcessor--71.32.81.48 14:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies that this has been left unattended for so long. Will follow up on the relevant talk page. -SV|t 19:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - Note - with the influx of new Wiki users, there is progress that is being made as far as the content of the article. When it comes to insults and accusations, however, I invite you to please see who is making the most accusations (without proof) and using the most insults. Considering the amount of disputes and issues you cover, I sincerely thank you for your time.--gcessor 07:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gaza strip

I would like to request mediation between myself and User:jayjg, in regards to the article Gaza Strip. User:jayjg has taken it upon himself to continuously delete a link to photos of Gaza strip. The photos are part of a work I amdoing describing the situation in Gaza prior to israel Pull-out plan. The photo (www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza) show the life of Palestinians in Gaza and of Israeli settlers there. Jayjg first removed the link claiming that it is "right wing Israeli propeganda" (side note I would invite anyone to other photos I take on www.pbase.com/yalop/wall_in_yard to determine if I am a "right wing peopeganda person") anyhow since Jayjg decided the links to the photos are propeganda he takes then down claiming that he is "removing link spam".

Jayjg has an agenda that he exposed when he first removed the links. Such agenda disqulfied him from editing such a politicaly sensitive issue. He also engae in a personal vandeta against me and removed links from other articles . Please help with finding a mediator who can help imlement the external link policy.

Is anyone reasing this ? Please help resolve this dispute . Thanks. The same editor has removed other photos from other articles He wrote his justification for the removal as "remove anti-pullout spamlinks." Please see Gush Katif

>> Can anyone help in the mediation of this or is one person can just start a personal edit war against me because he mis interpret my photos as being against his political view ? >>(How can photos of a place, photos that show both Israelis and Palestinians who live in the area) be a propeganda is beyond my ability to understand but it seems he has made his mind and started a vandeta to remove all external links I have added. >> Is this how Wikipedia works ? >> Please note that the issue is the CONTENT of the photos (not anything else like should they be loaded directly or linked to external site) This editor objects these photos: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Clearly these are photos trying to provide insight on the situation and not propeganda by either side Both sides could be unhappy about some of the photos and happy about others. -Unsigned

You have to sign your posts. -SV|t 19:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually three different editors have been removing the links, based on the fact that the links are not encyclopedic, and are an attempt to spam Wikipedia with links to his website (yes, I know he'll claim it's not his website, since he is not the ISP, but that's sophistry). He knows this, but prefers to present the issue as something else. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg has removed this without providing an Edit Summary:

Photos showing the daily life of Palestinian in Gaza strip -Unsigned

I would like to mediate this issue : Are photos showing the living condition of people in Gaza strip belong or do not belong in a page that talks about the poeple, the living condition and the poverty in Gaza strip ? -Unsigned

The fact that Jayjg his misunderstood the photos to be what he describe as "right wing propaganda" just show that he does not understand what is in the photos. The fact that two others jumped to his defense (maybe because I am not a register user or for other non jermain reason) proovs nothing. All that is needed is to look at the photos and answer: 1) Are those important to people who search for the value "Gaza strip" ? Answer: Clearly the photos provide insight beyond the text. 2) Are the link violate the external link policy ? Answer: I don't see how. Please help mediate this. Jayjg and.or John Parris are not qualified tio make these decision alone. - Unsigned

Ive reformatted your comments. If unformatted, and unsigned, and if parties dont agree to mediation, its not a formal request. -SV|t 19:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo and the Talk:Terri Schiavo pages

I respectfully request mediation on these two pages, with a second from User:Mia-Cle. I also believe that User:Grace Note may support this. User:NCdave ~~and User:FuelWagon~~ may eventually support mediation, but remain skeptical. User:FuelWagon supports mediation.

I believe the following items need mediation:

POV issues surrounding Ms. Schiavo's condition (PVS, MVS, etc.)
POV issues surrounding the legal status Ms. Schiavo's family (legal guardianship of Terri; Michael's relationships; etc.)
POV issues regarding terminology discussing the judge's ruling(s)
Behavior on the Talk Page

The good news is that there are a large number of deeply concerned and motivated people contributing to the pages. Unfortunately, the Talk page has become rancorous and bloggish enough that the article(s) may need arbitration. However, a less vocal majority would like to see sustantial outside input before we ask for that step.

The issues surrounding Terri Schiavo, her family and her eventual death are already having a major impact on US politics and culture. This can be seen in the Filibuster debate on the Senate floor. Please assist us in presenting the facts in the best means possible for Wikipedia.--ghost 18:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon. Several users are waiting to hear what, if any response there's been to this request. If the topic is not going to be addressed, I'd like to go back to them and see if arbitration is in order. Please respond.--ghost 14:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support mediation, and I'm more than puzzled that there's been no response to the request. What's up with that? Duckecho 15:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Things have settled down of late, but I doubt they're settled for good. The key issue seems to be that two vastly divergent POVs exist on this subject. The first holds that the findings of the courts must be treated as fact in Wikipedia. The second takes a more broad view of fact; one that allows for the courts to be incorrect, and some of their findings to be anywhere from wrong (at best) to criminal (at worst). Please give us a standard to self-rule by.--ghost 20:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Schiavo page is good -but NOT perfect at all: I agree with Ghost's analysis. In order to address the problems we need a 2-step approach: First we need to find things that bother us in the article and identify them. (I.e., "what's the problem?") Let me help out: Does anyone think the article has unneeded items -or items missing? Specifically, are they in the discussion of the history of the Schiavo saga (broader than merely a court case, mind you!) --or, instead, are they in the links and references sections? Then, secondly, we need to ask, "what's the proposed solution?" The solution would be to address them point, by point. Period.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation: So far one requester has agreed to -- Uncle Ed (talk) as Mediator. Any other takers? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Ann Heneghan 00:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I checked out your user page, Uncle Ed, and notice that you are on good terms with some of the big names in Wikipedia. In addition, I recall that your comments on Terri Schiavo's WIKI talk page seemed polite and balanced. Since I had put this page on my watch list, I finally got around to taking a look to see "what's up." Although I am a day late, I am NOT a dollar short: I shall provide an answer in the affirmative: I support your participation in mediation.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I created a mediation enclave at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation and invited all the people ghost identified as agreeing to / favoring mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cberlet and User:Sam Spade

Status: Pending choice of Mediator
- Sam Spade agrees to having mediation
- Cberlet agrees to having mediation with any current mediator

User Sam Spade appears to be following me from page to page in a systematic way and making edits that challenge or revert my edits. He does not appear to be engaging in constructive collective editing on the discussion pages. He appears to believe that his right-wing POV is actually NPOV. He appears to have a history of getting into disputes with other editors. I am requesting a mediator to find a solution to this problem. There are several pages involved: Fascism, Fascism and religion, and Political correctness.--Cberlet 22:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Mediation_cabal#Christian_right_and_Political_correctness. I would say this is a trivial matter unworthy of the mediators’ time (particularly in comparison to other outstanding cases), but I will gladly engage in a constructive dialogue. I assume it goes without saying that I reject most of Chips statement above. Sam Spade 22:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, you need to be clear. Are you willing to accept mediation or not?AndyL 02:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a mediator? If not, I don't believe you have a place in this discussion. And of course I accept mediation, I always do. Not accepting looks bad ;) Sam Spade 10:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please select a Mediator. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

"Andrevan, CatherineMunro, Ed Poor, Improv,

MacGyverMagic, Stevertigo." I will accept any of the current official mediators (listed above).--Cberlet 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please accept our apologies for the delay. What developments has this problem had in the past weeks? Please move discussion to /Cberlet and Sam Spade. -SV|t 19:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Banja Luka: (User:Oldadamml aka User:oldadamm aka User:81.93.75.129 vs. User:Dado)

There is a long dispute going on with the Banja Luka article, specifically regarding the Bosnian Genocide. Please send a mediator. Thanks.--AI 09:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept our apologies for the delay. I will drop a line at Talk:Banja Luka. Do parties accept mediation? -SV|t 19:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Act

Mediation is requested to resolve one question - whether the following sentence can be included in the authoritative voice.

" However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less [7] [8] [9] [10] ^{[dubious – discuss]} — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them.] "

In spite of 4 references which posit this opinion - it remains the opinion of the positors, and is not independantly verifyable. The use of weasel the word "likely" does not grant immunity from verifiability requirments. As no one has shown how this assertion could be veryfied, it ought to be properly couched and dressed in counterclaims - which have been deleted.

My sense is the parties (4) are all open to mediation. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

First, the RfC process was invoked for this article. Katefan0 has been deeply involved since. The article has just today entered an RfP cooling-off period.

The author of the above text is a nuclear engineer who has been unaffiliated with the industry for over a decade.

The word "unstable" is from RBMK - the citations back it up. Unmentioned was that American nuclear power plants don't use graphite in the core. That there is a difference may be implied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission only requiring a 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone around each U.S. nuclear power plant.

The full text of the paragraph is:

The pool of money — which as of 2004 stood at about $9.5 billion — is contributed ^{[dubious – discuss]} by the nuclear industry, primarly through power reactor licensees, who are required to have $200 million worth of primary insurance as of 2001. In the event that claims deplete the pool of funds, the Congress of the United States is required to consider covering the excess cost, possibly by establishing additional assessments against the industry. [A catastrophic nuclear event — such as the 1986 Chernobyl accident — would arguably deplete and likely exceed the current pool of money. Though the Soviet Union never released official estimates of the accident's economic impact, Greenpeace International estimated it to have been about $280 billion, not including medical costs for victims. However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less [11] [12] [13] [14] ^{[dubious – discuss]} — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them.]

More than four editors have worked on this article in the last week.

I believe that Mediation is not indicated at this time - the editors have just begun to discuss under RfP.

Simesa 3 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

The Author admits to relying on one's own expertise and opinion in making this assertion and also suggests that "implied" facts may be asserted in the authoritative voice. I don't object to the assertion being included as long as it is expressed in a veryfiable manner, and not merely representative of a lone wikipedians opinions, however qualified, decorated, certified, experienced or educated they might be.

Notice that Greenpeace's cost estimates are properly attributed in-line, but the assertion that nuclear is safe is just hung up on the clotheline by itself, clipped on with a weasel word so as to dull the pain. Before wikipedia commits its authoritative voice to the assertion that nuclear is safe - let us ask - why is it asking for insurance indemnity in the first place? 3 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

Parties who have agreed to Mediation

Benjamin Gatti 4 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
I'd be glad to participate, but would like the mediation to cover the entire article. I don't want to talk only about one paragraph, only to have the same edit warring start anew once the page is unprotected and Benjamin decides he wants to add something additional to the current text. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 20:04 (UTC)
As Katefan0. We may have near-agreement on two specific sentences that were sticking points, pending finding citations. Simesa 4 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
pstudier 2005 July 6 23:37 (UTC) My problem is the attitude of Benjamin Gatti which shows absolutely no respect for anyone who disagrees with him.

Possible Mediators

Please indicate your preferences: accept/reject for Mediator volunteers; make other suggestions for who you'd like instead:

Uncle Ed

I accept Uncle Ed as mediator, stressing that we're to mediate the entire article. Simesa 6 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
I accept as respondant for the entire article without objection. Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)
I accept Uncle Ed, reasserting my preference for the entire article. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 6, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
I accept Uncle Ed. pstudier 2005 July 6 23:40 (UTC)

User:Reub2000 in dispute with 65.182.172.*

A annon user has been causing trouble on the Italian Beef article. When trying to discuss the article, he has been uncopperative in resolving the disputes, and has repeatly flamed me, removed my signed comments, vandalised my talk page, unarchived the archive of Talk:Italian Beef, reverted all edits I make to Italian Beef, among other things. Action desperatly needs to be taken. Reub2000 20:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving on a trip tommarow, so any mediation has to take place after sunday the 14th.Reub2000

I'll volunteer to mediate this if both parties are comfortable with me and are willing to participate in the mediation process. -JCarriker 15:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The other party hasn't edited the article for awhile, I wonder if he gave up on the edit war? Reub2000 07:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User 65.182.172.*

Anonymous user 65.182.172.* seems to have a track record for such bullying behaviour. He has engaged in similar behaviour at Italian Beef, Greek Reconstructionism, Green Tortoise, Chicago-style hot dog, Burning Man and several other entries. For someone who is so passionate about so many divergent topics, it seems odd that he has the same type of interaction with almost everyone who has any opinion which differs from his. - Cyberdenizen 01:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant and Xiong

Xiong posted a message on the talk page of Radiant demanding a forum for the coming conflict between Good and Evil between them. Radiant requested that mediation be the forum. I posted a message on the talk page of Xiong asking him to be civil, saying that his previous message looked like a personal attack. I do not know whether Radiant has also engaged in personal attacks or other misconduct. Xiong is now using my talk page as the forum. I am about to archive those posts from my talk page, because I am not a mediator. Could the MedCom please handle this dispute? There has not been an RfC, but if there is a dispute between two users, a user conduct RfC may not be feasible due to the lack of a second certifier. Robert McClenon 20:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to handle this dispute. Can you help me to get agreement of both parties to accept mediation? Uncle Ed 21:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am entirely amenable to any chosen forum and specifically to Ed Poor's mediation. Will Somebody kindly provide a link, so I can point it off my talk page? — Xiong 熊 talk * 22:09, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Note Xiong has left wikipedia, thus this mediation has been abandoned. However this page will be archived for historical reasons, and in case Xiong returns. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rangerdude in dispute with User:Willmcw and User:SlimVirgin

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangerdude

user:gadugi needs mediation with user:fvw

Please withdraw. I have given the matter some thought and I think I'll stick to articles on the Cherokee culture.

Jeff

Furry and Furry fandom

Re: Redirection to Furry fandom

There is a dispute on these page between the group of users of User:Almafeta, [68.163.234.98] and user:ContiE, with the users user:Krishva, user:Prangton, user:Stiv, and user:Grumpyhan. In the Talk:Furry page it has already been agreed upon earlier than the Furry article will be redirected to Furry fandom, but a day after the move has been done User:Almafeta has taken upon himself to restore the Furry article and consider the act of the other party as blanking and vandalism (notably in the Talk:Furry page). After this there have been several attempts to redirect the page again, and the restoration of the Almafeta version of the Furry article. As this is starting to get out of hand (there have been at least three restorations and three redirections, despite I having informed in the Talk:Furry fandom page to please make edits on the Furry fandom page rather than resurrecting the old Furry page), I hope some outside mediation would help calm User:Almafeta down. Thank you! -- Grumpyhan 04:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation requires the other person is willing to do it too and is informed of the request. Have you done so? Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be interested in mediation, for the reasons listed in Talk:Furry. Additionally, I see no reason to merge two distinct articles about two distinct topics, when both can be made into full articles as opposed to one being a section of another. Almafeta 21:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User:Grumpyhan has informed me he's contacted User:Almafeta. Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I was not personally informed, but a message was left on Talk:Furry, so everyone involved should know about this. I am willing to mediate. --Conti|✉ 13:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Erm, how do you square that with Grumpyhan's request above? He claims you've supported Almafeta. Mgm|^(talk) 17:19, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, I thought the RFM was also directed at me, as I'm mentioned in it. I do support Almafeta's view. --Conti|✉ 17:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    - Thing is, Conti, you can't mediate on a topic you're informed about (and thus have an opinion one way or the other about). Almafeta 21:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, ContiE. I thought you wanted to mediate the case as an official mediator. But I guess you wanted to be part of the case. Mgm|^(talk) 21:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
So Almafeta et al want two seperate pages and Grumpyhan et al want the pages to be merged. Under what circumstances do the "mergists" think a seperate article on Furry would be useful. What kind and how many info should it contain? Mgm|^(talk) 21:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Were there enough information on the subject distinct from what is already presented in the furry fandom article to warrant a second article, which we see as unlikely at the present time and, indeed, for some time. This issue has been discussed somewhat on the Talk:furry page, presently in the archived sections. -- Stiv 19:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think it was Conti who suggested that furry be about furry art, that is to say art created by the furry fandom. That's the only suggestion I've heard. This is really frustrating because I can't think of any encyclopedic, distinct information that would warrant its own article under furry that wouldnt fit in a subsection of furry art. This is an especially difficult move since people have entirely different ideas of what the word furry means, I mean I think it refers directly to its fandom, but other people (mainly furry themselves) maintain that all anthropomorphic animals are called "furries" and that this sort of information belongs in an encyclopedia. I understand the former, but the latter is what one small subculture (relative to the population at large) calls a very vague artistic and literative symbology! In other words, only furries will refer to comics like Maus and books like Animal Farm using the word furry. This is why it's been so hard for us "mergists" and the other party to agree on something that could go on the furry page. I have no problems with adding new content to the furry page, but because of all this, I'm not sure what kind of information would be right! It would have to take a few things into account though, things Krishva, GrumpyHan, Stiv and I have gone over many times on the talk page:
  - The term furry is only used by furries in the furry fandom to describe anthropomorphic animals, or alternatively, zoomorphic people. When it isn't used by that specific group of people, it's used by people who are refering to creations of the furry fandom or to members of the furry fandom themselves. If you've been on the internet long enough, you'll know that the term furry has taken on a LOT more than that simple meaning.
  - If trying to define something like furry art, there is NO clear definition of where furry art ends and similar, non-furry art begins. Any and all attempts made to define it will probably be later edited so that it says the exact opposite of what the editor wrote. I'm not exaggerating.
  - If seperated, the furry article should be on a topic that can exist independently of the corresponding furry fandom. If not completely independently, it should at least be able to hold its own weight.

Sorry if this went on a little long, but yeah, that's it. --Prangton 19:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that mediation is necessary. User:Almafeta has made a whole section for personal attacks against me on the Talk:Furry page, and his behavior has been wildly accusatory for some time. While I am fairly tolerant and reasonable in the face of such behavior, making a whole section in which he accuses me of being on some crusade against furry fans is taking it a little too far. --Krishva 06:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Editors have started negotiations on Talk:Furry. I'll keep an eye on it. Mgm|^(talk) 21:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Council of Jerusalem

This article needs an unbiased person to define the FACTS of the Council of Jerusalem from Acts 15. 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is currently the subject of a 3o, which I'm undertaking myself. I don't think official mediation is required yet. Dan100 12:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case, please post an RFC or ask for a third opinion (see link on top of page). Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Based on a suggestion by Kim Bruning I will send this to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal - Mgm|^(talk) 20:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Can this be archived? SV|t 1 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Harmonics Theory at VFD

In the page Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Harmonics_Theory_(2nd_nomination), User:Dcfleck has made remarks (not for the first time in this discussion) to the effect "Tomes and his sock puppets" and despite my request to justify or remove the remark he has not done so after a week. I have at all times been totally honest in the discussion about what actions I have taken. I stated that I had invited several people to the discussion who had relevant knowledge. In the last round their votes were disallowed even though they had relevant expert knopwledge. There is no need for Dcflecks remarks. I can be contact by email at ray(at)tomes(dot)biz if required. I request that someone ask Dcfleck to remove his remarks. Ray Tomes 02:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Suggested other lines of action on his talk page including requesting a sockpuppet check on himself and asking the other user for proof. I don't think this would require full mediation, but feel free to drop him a message if you got other ideas. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Appears resolved -SV|t 1 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Weblog

User:Stevietheman, User:robotwisdom, User:Tverbeek

I recently started editing the weblog article, where User:Stevietheman and User:robotwisdom (and to a much lesser extent a few others) were already engaged in a heated and antagonistic debate, mutual reverts, etc. Following an unrelated edit by me, and my expression of a viewpoint that disagreed with Stevietheman, he has begun reverting my edits, even those explicitly identified as being in accordance with Wikipedia recommendations (e.g punctuation). Most recently, he has (inexplicably) drawn the matter of my sexual orientation into it on my Talk page. The parties appear intractable on content-related issues, and there are undoubtedly instances of personal attacks and other inappropriate behaviour all around. Although I have made an RFC for the article itself, this has escalated beyond that, and I feel it will require mediation involving the three parties to resolve. Tverbeek 04:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Told Tverbeek all parties should be made aware of the request. Awaiting response from User:Stevietheman and User:robotwisdom. Will make further enquiries if reponse doesn't follow. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Stevietheman has declined mediation. (see [15])- Mgm|^(talk) 17:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- This is merely on the basis that I don't have the stomach to further argue with the two other gentlemen. I just want this to pass and let's get on with other things. I won't go anywhere near the weblog article any longer... this should be seen as a solution without need for mediation. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Mediation declined. Conflict resolved. Archive -SV|t 1 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Macintosh_Plus

User:Raffaele Megabyte Vs. User:GRAHAMUK

In the past, the invoice "Macintosh Plus" of Wikipedia was improved by a section called "Trivia". In this section there were added rumors about the appearance of Macintosh Plus in Star trek IV movie (Star_Trek_IV:_The_Voyage_Home). Some mac zealots, thinking they were funny, added rumors about why Macintosh was used in that movie instead of another computer (Commodore Amiga). As an Amigan I find these rumors very insulting regarding this platform, because these gossips haunted the image of Amiga since 1986. Now fortunately I find new evidences that those gossips regarding the greed by Commodore Computers were false and I changed the trivia section of Macintosh Plus file in order to match new evidences. Then I also explained it in the discussion of Macintosh Plus topic. Unfortunately user GRAHAMUK continues to delete new arguments I added.

This is not a matter of "revisionism". this is a matter of justice, because due to the increasing importance of Wikipedia worldwide, a relevant number of Macintosh and "History of Computers" sites everywhere cutted&pasted whole story of Mac Plus from Wikipedia site and reported also the rumors between Macintosh and Amiga which was present notwithstanding in a Macintosh Article. Although Wikipedia is not guilty for that, unfortunately the organization contributed to spread worldwide false rumors that are insulting for the users of a computer platform. I think that Wikipedia organization must take its responsibilities, by unveiling new evidences to the vaste public of its readers worldwide.

So I ask you moderators to accept the fact I will revert again back Macintosh Plus trivia section as I read it for the first time (i.e. including ancient rumors about the Mac and Amiga) but to be polite, I will keep the new evidences I found only in the discussion page, in order to not include in the main Mac Plus page some topics that are not relevant for Macintosh history. But also I will include an indication for the benefit of readers to check the discussion page, so they could find there more informations (as clearly stated in the rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Make_omissions_explicit. And I hope that nobody will delete the indication pointing to discussion page anymore, due to a matter of keeping always visible the truth even if "unrelevant", "unwanted" or "embarassing".

Also I ask you moderators to warn user GRAHAMUK not to delete anymore the trivia section as originally traded, because he has no rights to hide informations to other readers even if these informations deal only relatively with Macintosh (and included information about Amiga also) only due to a matter of rumors reported by chance. This is my most important request to you moderators. Also I want to signal that the other competitor abused of "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" Wikipedia rule, and finally he abused of language in the discussion page of Macintosh Plus where I was trying to resolve the dispute between us. All these facts forced me to request you for moderation.

Sincerely, Raffaele --Raffaele Megabyte 10:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tempshill and Tverbeek have dropped Raffaele Megabyte a line with alternative suggestions on dealing with this issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Raffaele Megabyte read about suggestions Tempshill and Tverbeek, and disagree.

Ask yourself why a computer that is "unrelated" to the issue was tolerated into Macintosh Plus page almost an entire year (to be precise since may 2004 inserted by user 24.26.93.10 and until I revealed the story was different as originally traded). Evidence says that Amiga was tolerated because it was considered a joke. When Amiga become "embarassing" for that Macintosh legend, due to my intervention, then it was simply deleted from the issue as it never existed before. Propaganda in Stalinan Russia was more polite. To solve this moderation consider also this proposal of mine: I do not want that my changes to Macintosh+ Trivia will appear anymore in the main Macintosh Plus page, because my modifications are unrelated to Macintosh Plus topic. Hope this fact will be appreciated by readers mac editoras of the article and moderators. But obviously the evidences I found should remain into discussion page of Macintosh Plus article. Also I ask (as reparation) that whole Star-trek Trivia (including Amiga presence) will be reverted as originally traded since may 2004 into Macintosh Plus page and a note should be written pointing to Mac Plus discussion page (in which there are the facts I found and revealed to the public of wikipedia). I want only this line into brackets should appear: -> (See also discussion page about other evidences on these trivia) I think it is a honest request to return MacPlus page as orignally traded since may 2004. (Nobody complained of Amiga into Mac Plus page, before my intervention) sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte 00:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extremely trivial. Others appear to have declined. Will communicate this to parties. Archive. -SV|t 1 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Abortion

User:Tznkai and User:214.13.4.151

I am requesting mediation. RFC has been filed against 214, Talk:abortion and User talk:214.13.4.151 have comunication attempts. I am persuing the next logical step. - User:Tznkai

Acknowledged. -SV|t 1 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

Forgot to sign a while back evidently--Tznkai 7 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

As both parties appear to agree to mediation, do both accept my services as mediator? -SV|t 8 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)

Sure--Tznkai 8 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

Democratic Peace Theory

User:Ultramarine and User:Pmanderson

User:Ultramarine is attempting to enforce a strong POV supporting one form of Democratic Peace Theory, which form is fairly original, although not with him. He deletes criticisms of this pet form of the theory from the article at whim, and distorts the phrasing of the remainder, so that they are unrecognizable as criticism. He does not discuss these deletions on the talk page. The result of these insistences has been to seriously unbalance the article, in which other forms of DPT deserve much more space relative to this one extreme form (as Ultramarine himself calls it) in which he appears to be True Believer.

He also insists on his private version of the history of the twentieth century; in which the People's Republic of China was always subservient to the Soviet Union and the 1956 Hungarian Revolution did not succeed in (briefly) installing a new regime before the Soviet tanks rolled in. I dispute the accuracy of these statements and others, and have attempted to install an accuracy duspute tag - which he has now twice removed. [These are relevant to an alternate account of peace between democracies: most democracies have only existed since about 1945, and have not fought each other because they were allied against the Soviet Union.] Please intervene Septentrionalis 16:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary it is Pmanderson who deletes arguments and grossly distorts the article with his edits, leaving it very difficult to read. I have discussed all things in my Edit summaries. I use scholarly studies while Pmanderson relies on newspaper opinions and original research. I have given one verision of how to view the Hungarian revolution and China and keepings his. He deletes mine and keeps only his own. Ultramarine 17:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do parties agree to mediation? Will contact. -SV|t 1 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

Anarchism

The meaning of...

Though some might immediately roll their eyes when thinking of this article and its accompanying miles of Talk archives, right now the debate has really ground to a halt. The debate is over the meaning of "anarchism." Supporters of anarcho-capitalism and Libertarians (they make no attempt to hide their association) want 1) all references to non-capitalist anarchists be done as "left-anarchists" or "anarcho-socialists" rather than simply "anarchists". or 2) a disambiguation be created that splits anarchism into "anarcho-socialism" and "anarchism" (the latter would resemble something like this: User:Hogeye/Anarchism. The editors that support these neologisms, and whom I believe are simply campaigning for the Libertarian Party, are User:Hogeye, User:Dtobias, User:RJII. Sympathetic to that triad are User:Silverback and User:Sam_Spade. There was an RFC called for Hogeye as his aggressive splitting and editing clearly showed that he was using Wikipedia as a soapbox example.

The other faction (to which I belong) regards "Anarcho-capitalism" as no more than a minor fringe group that follows the writings of Murray Rothbard and is waging an ideological campaign by introducing such neologisms as "anarcho-socialism" to essentially rewrite historical and contemporary understandings of anarchism to conform to their POV. For my part, I asked for page protection, conducted a survey Talk:Anarchism/Archive16 quite some time ago, and recently made an RFC, which was supposed to bolster results for another survey. The new survey was archived 4 days after posting, by User:Hogeye, possibly because his faction was clearly "losing" (speculation). I tried something novel and summarized the arguments made by both sides because I was so sick of hearing the same things said over and over. This had the effect of making clear (at least to me) that the POV expressed by User:Hogeye, User:Dtobias, and User:RJII is irreconcilable -- they refuse to negotiate. So I ask for mediation between those three users specifically and myself. If any other editors wish to enter into mediation, please sign below. --albamuth 17:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above is a misrepresentation of me and my position. Do not make anymore false claims about me. And, I do not wish to participate in this mediation. Thank you. RJII 20:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How was what I said misrepresentative? I didn't accuse you of anything but intellectual dishonesty, which I don't believe is against wikipedia policy. --albamuth 30 June 2005 02:34 (UTC)

P.S. I have never said I was an anarcho-capitalist. You see a basic problem here when certain individuals see this as a war between different ideological camps, when in fact, he really has no clue what the political pursuasions of some of us are. Some of us are just trying to make a good NPOV article. RJII 21:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you decline mediation that what would you suggest as the next step to resolve this stalemate? --albamuth 09:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlock the article and let what's going to happen, happen. The lockdown on the article is excessively protracted and therefore a violation of official Wikipedia policy. RJII 18:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:RJII declines mediation. May be case for WP:RFC/WP:RFA. Unprotection not recommended. Will contact. -SV|t 1 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

Are you trying to say I'm in violation of some kind of rule by not engaging in argumentation? If so, I hope you're joking. I don't work here. If you pay me, I'll debate. Otherwise, I'm just not interested. I was not even a participant in the "edit war" in the Anarchism article. I've simply been debating in the discussion page, and now I'm tired of it. If it's unlocked, maybe I'll edit, otherwise, I'm losing interest fast.RJII 2 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

I believe he is simply noting the fact that you didn't want mediation. No need to get suspicious. --cesarb 2 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)

Ceske_Budejovice

jbetak and NoPuzzleStranger

Request for mediation over a dispute on current name alternatives for České Budějovice. NoPuzzleStranger has initiated a change in this article which is largely POV. His response to several attempts to discuss the need for any change was delayed, curt and POV. During our exchange NoPuzzleStranger has initiated another change to a related article on Plzeň. I call for two things: the Plzeň article should be left unchanged (which NoPuzzleStranger seems to support now) and the České Budějovice article should reflect Budweis as German and English name alternative. These name alternatives are based on former and current use by foreigners and locals alike. Jbetak 30 June 2005 18:23 (UTC)

Do parties agree to mediation? Will contact. -SV|t 1 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
The person who accuses me of POV has argued that "What happened to formerly Jewish, German and Magyar towns like Bratislava borders on barbarism and is a real shame". Clearly it's him who's driven by POV here. NoPuzzleStranger 1 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone, that's just your interpretation of my call for mediation. I saw you engage in revert wars before and believe others brought and into mediation before.

You have just again reverted an article with a comment "I'll leave Plzen on your version, and you leave that on mine". I didn't write these articles. I did bring to your attention however that you are making a controversial POV change and brought forward some facts to document the continued use of both "Budweis" and "Pilsen". I believe your understanding of both the topic and the spirit of collaboration here on Wikipedia is quite a bit off. Jbetak 1 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)