Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Archive/2

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Sathya Sai Baba

Why was the Sathya Sai Baba 2 request for mediation removed? SSS108 ^talk-email 03:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

See the rejected case archives. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, Andries was out on vacation or something. Do I need to re-submit it again? Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If he is now willing to sign on, just relist it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template format

I've deleted {{RFMR}} and instead placed the text in Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Case_name_.28Sample.29. Too many people seem to either not understand how to use the template, edit the template itself, or ignore it entirely. Hopefully, with three bolded messages on the page requiring the format, the template itself there, and now delisted case tags that point out the problem, people will get the point that a rambling ten paragraph rant does not make for a mediation case. I intend to continue with the policy of rejecting any request that fails to use the format; as I see it, it is a matter of respect: If you really want to take your case to mediation, you will respect the requirements. Additionally, it thins out insincere requests: If you can't even be bothered to use the right format, then you aren't really that interested in mediation, and your case should rightly be ignored. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some users I listed have not been involved lately

Hi. I nominated a case just now, but afterwards I realized that many of the parts I called upon have not been involved in the conflict lately. The main involved parties of the case are me, User:Mikkalai, and user:Digi Wiki. If those other two people I listed rejected to mediate, will the case be rejected? I could remove them from the list of participants, but I've already querried them on their discussion page.

Fred-Chess 17:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If they are not involved in the dispute any longer, and you don't forsee them becoming involved again, then yes, you can remove them. Just leave them a note saying "I realized you'd not been involved for a while; I've removed you for now, but if you want to partipate, please feel free to re-add yourself." Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nikola Karev

Hi, I don't know where to write my request for mediation, so I'll write it here. If someone knows the right plase, please put it there. My request is for the article Nikola Karev. It is one of the many Macedonian-Bulgarian disputes. I have written a version which can be a compromis but the user FunkyFly is stubburn in his nationalism, rewgarding this and other articles concerning Macedonian-Bulgarian questions. See mine and his version of the article and please help (Zdravko mk 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Also see Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board for dispute resolution efforts in place.   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To file a Request for Mediation, please read and follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Sick and Tired of Admin:InShanees incivil behaviour

He is constantly being rude and disrespectuful. I really want his behaviour to be examined. 72.57.230.179

This is not the place for complaints about admins. Take it to ANI or Arbitration. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

About Sathya Sai Baba Dispute

Essjay, what happened to the Sathya Sai Baba submission. I read the history tab where it said it was "accepted". What is the next step? Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Once cases are accepted, members of the committee review the available cases and decide which ones they individually wish to mediate. The request remains unassigned until a mediator takes the assignment and contacts the parties. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Essjay. The other party in the mediation request has expressed some degree of impatience with this process and suggested taking the entire issue to the Arbitration committee. What is your opinion about this? Would the Arbitration committee accept a request even if the mediation is pending a mediator? SSS108 ^talk-email 11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There's not really any way to know what the AC will or won't accept. However, if it's a quick solution that is desired, Arbitration is the last place to go; cases rarely ever close in less than two months, and often go far longer than that. They also typically end with people being sanctioned; it doesn't often happen that an AC case closes without someone being placed on some kind of restriction. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nine articles on the Golden Dawn

Disclaimer: If I'm using this talk page wrong, please let me know. Thanks.

With all the chaos going on with this particular request for mediation, I'm just wondering who is going to be capable to mediate it! If anyone wishing to check the history of the Req. for meditation page, they will see just what we have been dealing with on all the articles that have been requested for mediation. Frater FiatLux is a handful, and this might effect the decision to even accept the mediation. So I'm asking everyone to please just calm down and let this take its course. Thanks. Zos 22:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it looks complicated, almost all of the issues boil down to a matter of verifiable, reliable sources. User Kephera975, User Zanoni666, and User Frater FiatLux want to be able to use their own group's autobiographical website, affidavits and papers submitted their lawyer in an unsettled civil court case, and their own uncited personal opinions as sources for articles (other than for their own group's sub-article.) There is no need for a mediator to versed in the issues being raised. A simple determination as to what sources are appropriate under WP policies and guidelines would cut through this Gordian Knot quite neatly. - JMax555 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Kephera975 has decided which issue to look at first. -999 (Talk) 01:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Determine the appropriateness of uncited judgmental material (such as calling people "Satanists") added to various Order articles by Zanoni666: EOGD, OSOGD, OSM, SRC&SA. -999 (Talk) 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that this defamatory content was written by Z but reverted by K. -999 (Talk) 01:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To be clearer: Z=Zanoni, and K=Kephera. Zos 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This request is now 8 articles!

On another note, I just recieved a copy of Modern Ritual Magic: The Rise of Western Occultism. Here is a brief description:

• This is the inside story of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and associated occult offshoots - told in its entirety for the first time.

So I'll be using this book for any claims being made. It discusses the majority of the articles under request for mediation. Zos 21:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

First things first: eliminate deletion as a realistic option

I would like to recommend that mediation first take up and eliminate the idea of the deletion of any articles. The reason there are separate articles is based on Wikipedia policy. Most of the pertinent data for the individual articles comes from each organization's own website and per WP:V self-published autobiographical sources may only be used in an article about the person or organization. Thus the separate articles. This also provides a buffer against the unscrupulous additions of opinions published on the website of competing organizations - each article can use only its own site for information about itself (as well as other published reputable sources, of course). -999 (Talk) 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the first thing it to get this mediation accepted! Zos 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(EC)Articles can't be deleted by a mediation committee as far as I am aware. That would take an arbcom. ---J.S (t|c) 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Then could someone from the MC edit the items to be mediated to remove the ones that ask to delete articles? That would make the whole thing more managable, I think. -999 (Talk) 22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know how to accomplish that beyond filing the request. Focusing on deletion first allows several points to be removed fairly quickly, making the remaining points more managable and more likely to be accepted. I'm just pointing out how we can sppedy the mediation... -999 (Talk) 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify, a mediation cannot directly suggest articles be deleted. However, if all invovled parties were to agree that an article should be deleted then an article coudl be deleted using a prod delete or it could be taken to AfD. Let me just explain something, as there seems to be some confusion over the 'powers' of the Mediation Committee. The mediation committee never exerts power as a body. What it does is appoint mediators to cases, and accept cases. However cases can only proceed if all parties are willing to mediate. A mediator is not a judge, more a facilitator of discussion about the article (and tries to help resolve disputes). If mediation does fail than the options that remain are RfCs and RfArs. With RfArs the arbitrators act more like judges and 'judge' a case, and then pass a sentence (sort of). Mediation will only work if all parties want it to. If in the case of this mediation one party does not agree with something that others are saying then it is not the case of the mediator acting like a judge and saying "so-and-so is wrong, I think you ought to do such-and-such", it is a case of the mediator trying to allow discussion to occur in a free and frank manner in order to resolve the conflict as much as possible (which may not always be achievable). --Wisden17 22:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well then, this is probably a pointless exercise unless a meditator can rule on interpretation of policy. The main problem here is that the other parties seem to be unwilling to accept WP policy, though it is not clear to me whether this is b/c they can't be bothered to read it, don't understand it, or simply choose to ignore it. -999 (Talk) 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediators don't rule, as such, on anything. Mediation is not that kind of process. Let me quote from WP:M:"In all cases they strive to achieve conciliation through negotiation. Mediators listen to both sides, they try to help one put oneself in the other's position. Mediators try to resolve differences in a mutually agreeable manner. Mediators avoid procedure, they use and set ground rules so meaningful discussions take place; they try to get the parties to listen to each other." If you are looking for a judgement, as such then RfAr may be better suited to you. However the ArbCom may refuse the case until mediation has been attempted, or on any other grounds. --Wisden17 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we may as well give it a chance. Whether all the parties have actually been listening to each other is not certain. Perhaps some things will be resolved through mediation and other will have to go to RfAr or ArbCom. Never been through this myself so it should be an interesting learning experience :-) -999 (Talk) 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is much to learn and this would be an exciting experience. This might be better resolved in arbitration as well. That way, whatever occurs, even if we all disagree, we will all know that it is a NPOV article for Wikipedia.

Kephera975 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt call it "exciting" but an interesting experience. However, I doubt this would go to Arb. The main issue here is sources, which would be resolved rather easily by clarification of policy to the editors. The remainder of the issues to be mediated revolve around edit conflicts pertaining to disagreement of the sources, as well as minor wording in the articles. Its also my opinion that this shouldnt even be in mediation. The majority of the disputes (if not all) are just conflicting opinions about sources (whats can be used, and what cant). But I'm still willing to participate, to end this matter. Zos 02:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your opinion. I look forward to more such civil displays of opinion. My main concern here has been that it seems that someone can source, but even in sourcing material, it is my perception that an encyclopedic article should distance itself from any POV or controversy as much as possible. Keeping the article a solely historical one about the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn founded in 1888 would do just this, yet we could not reach a consensus on this with editors refusing to keep the current legal conflicts out of the HOGD, Inc. autobiographical page, and, frankly, none of the -contemporary orders- articles seem very appropriate to Wikipedia to me at all in light of WP:V anyway. However, why don't we save the stimulating conversation for the possibly upcoming mediation, shall we? My point is is that there is more than just sourcing and verifiablity to be concerned with. I could source a book by a peer reviewed author all day on a controversial subject and it still could be POV. There is a good consensus on the history because there are a voluminous amount of books out there on the founders of the Golden Dawn and their rituals and none of these sources can be accused of self-agrandizement or POV.

--Kephera975 02:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well. Articles need POV. The only issue is, they need to be written in an NPOV. If there were no POV's on Wikipedia, there would be no articles. And also, if you think there is more here than just discussion of sources, then why didnt you mention anything else besides it? Zos 04:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. Many times, in fact. Kephera975 17:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Keeping the article to the "1888 Order" would still be a controversy with the HOGD/A+O. The connection to the SRIA, for example. Just about every published book source that details the origins of the GD draws the connections between the SRIA and the GD; most describe the similarity of grades and ritual forms, and the membership in the SRIA of all the GD founders. But to you this is "POV", because you think that Gilbert, for example, is prejudiced toward the SRIA. So what are we left with? Westcott's legendary account, of secret chiefs and letters from an aged German adept, that no one in the relevent academic community takes at face value?

If there is a disagreement between reliable, published sources on any point, that can and should be mentioned in the text of an article. But for the most part, the "theories" you and your associates keep wanting to include have no other sources but your own group's website and message forums. That is the issue, as I see it. For example, another GD group pushes a claim on their website of there being "secret oral traditions" of Golden Dawn teachings that were never written down and are unknown to scholars. They tried to insert that into the article too, and got challeneged and removed for the same reason: the claim has no other source but their own website and blog. So in the interest of "fairness" and "NPOV" do we include that too? Shall we also give Crowley's POV that the Golden Dawn was "superceded" by the A:.A:., and that Thelema is the natural extension of the GD teachings? Hey, Crowley's a published source! Have any of the people you accuse of being bigoted Thelemites tried to insert that theory into the article? No. Even Thelemites agree that when it comes to history, you can't trust Crowley as far as you can throw a goat, unless there's a third-party source to back him up. Crowley's "theories" were always conveniently self-aggrandizing, just as are the "theories" the HOGD/A+O promotes on it's website.

If "NPOV" to you means including every "theory", no matter how controversial and unsourced, then the geology article in Wikipedia should include the Flat Earth "theory" and Young Earth Creationism.

No, the first step in this process has to be a determination as to what sources are acceptable for citation, and in Wikipedia that's fairly strict. If you feel those citations must be qualified with phrasing such as "Gilbert theorizes that...", that's something that can be discussed and consensus reached. But the answer is NOT to ALSO include every unverifiable, unpublished, undocumented "counter"-theory to supposedly make the article "balanced", especially when those theories are completely at odds with the prevailing view of the relevent academic community. The problem, as I see it, is that you think that "prevailing view" is equivilent to "baised view". - JMax555 14:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

All good thoughts. It seems apparent to me that we could attempt mediation on this in order to reach a consenses of what would constitute an NPOV article for Wikipedia. Just one suggestion to you, if you don't mind. Instead of saying what I believe and saying "you" this or "you" that in a sort of accusatory tone, why don't you just state your own opinion in response to mine after I've written it personally? For example, I never stated, personally, that I thought everything written by Gilbert was biased, although his having been a member of S.R.I.A. would lend more weight and credence to that organization than what might be considered necessary for an article purely on the H.O.G.D. This could be talked through with relative ease whereas the contemporary order articles are so controversial, purely POV, and lacking in verifiablity that we may as well just include the links to their respective websites for those Wikipedia readers who are interested in the modern offshoots. Again, though, why don't we wait for the expert opinions of a third party mediator for any further discussion here? That is, if mediation is approved. Please do not assume that I believe everything you accused me of believing just because you lump me in with the other editors that I happen to agree with at times. Just a suggestion. I would just appreciate it if you expressed your own opinions and refrained from speaking for me.

Kephera975 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Decision Section of the Mediation Filing Missing For "Eight Articles"

I've noticed that the section of the mediation filing for the acceptance or rejection of a mediation case is not on the filing. Is this going to cause mediation to ignore the filing? --Kephera975 13:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything improperly formatted might. Zos 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

New issue

• Detemine whether historical material about the Stella Matutina should be kept distinct from the more recent and non-continuous modern order founded in 2000, Ordo Stella Matutina.

This is an entirely new issue, going on right now. I wish to add historical information to the Ordo Stella Matutina article, and user 999 will not allow this. He created an article for disamb called Stella Matutina, then instead of leaving these two article be, he redirected the latter to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. He is not allowing good faith and also threatening to take his name off mediation page because I wish to add to the article! So he made this new bullet point to get me to stop. It wont work unless someone tells me that I cannot add to an article under request for mediation that has not even been accepted nor rejected. Zos 19:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I intended for the placement of historical vs. modern information to be discussed and decided in mediation. If I phrased the points too narrowly, it is only because I had no idea that anyone would want to do what you are trying to do. -999 (Talk) 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that I cannot contribute while there is a request for mediation. Zos 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the reasons a request may be rejected is if the Mediation Committee have reason to believe that any of the parties signed in bad faith. Continuing to edit the article over the objections of one of the other parties could easily be taken as suggesting bad faith and lead to the rejection of the request. -999 (Talk) 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Any information I wish to add gives credibility to that article. I only add meterial while provding citations. We have already been adding cited information to the Cipher Manuscripts article, in good faith, and I will continue to do the same for any unprotected article uder mediation until told otherwise by a mediator, or the chairman (or anyone else of relevance to this matter). Zos 22:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments removed

I've removed all the comments on the mediation page. This is to conform to the requirments of format for requesting mediation. This has been done in good faith, so please understand that before you get the wrong idea. Thanks. Zos 15:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I approve. We should do everything we can to get his mediation accepted. I've gone through and numbered the points to make them easier to discuss and combined related points so as to reduce the intimidating number of points to something more managable. This also has been done in good faith, so I also ask that other parties please understand that before you get the wrong idea. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Decline

I have declined to particiapte in the mediation. If the process does not go on beacuse of this, I apologize. Reason: Recently, I have been having some trouble adding to articles because of user 999. I personally do not like his threats of removing his name from the list, in order to keep me from adding cited material to articles. It is apperant that he is taking mediation too seriously (before it is accepted/rejected), and his actions on the talk pages are leading me to believe there is an attempt at ownership. I have filed a complaint against his latest attack of verbal abuse here. I wish the other editors luck in dealing with this matter, and hope to edit with them after this is all over. All good thoughts. Zos 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As quickly as 999 declined, he has now nominated 2 articles for deletion that were requested for mediation, and one that was not. Please check them to see if you wish to add to the survey. Thanks. Zos 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't see how you can complain. At least I withdrew from the mediation BEFORE nominating the articles for deletion, unlike you, who simply tried to force your will on the articles while pretending that you were still adhering to the agreement to mediation in good faith. -999 (Talk) 00:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel it was a complaint. I am simply letting others who are viewing know what is going on after we declined. Now you are saying you withdrew from mediation first? Check the history, I declined, then you followed. I used no force to edit either. Zos 00:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See clarification above. Clearly this medium sucks for communication (unless you are being purposely dense). -999 (Talk) 00:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Which clarification? Please refrain from personal attacks. I am not dense, but you feel its needed to state that I am complaining, and this is simply wrong. Zos 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've bolded the clarification above. Since you are not dense, I must now assume that you saw the clarification, but were being snippy. -999 (Talk) 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just didnt understand which clarification you were refering to, and to which topic. It could have been a number of things, and was not pointed directly to such, until bolded. Zos 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

F-14 Mediation

If this is rejected, I would like some recommendation on the proper next step to proceed. User:Wiarthurhu is being incorrigible, has wholly rewritten the Issued to be mediated into a personal attack on me and my qualifications (I won't dignify an attack on my intellectual or academic qualifications by answering them). I'm willing to treat this as solely a content dispute, but it's becoming more clear that Wiarthurhu doesn't. I've already filed a wikiquette complaint against him Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#28_June_2006 that shows his other personal attacks (backed up by another editor's recent dispute with him). His behavior (his "bring it on baby" comment here, his daring other editors to revert him on the F-14 page [1], and his proclamation of "VICTORY" [2] ) on talk pages are not promising. --Mmx1 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid RfM

Zeq is banned from the articles that he's edited in this RFM and has not edited the articles he has not been banned from. I see his inclusion in this RFM as counterproductive and pointless. I'm loathe to agree to this RFM if Zeq is in any way involved Homey 01:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(moved from talk pages)

I do not wish to participate in a mediation process that involves an editor who has been banned from the articles in question. I suggest you remove Zeq from the list of parties. He has not edited the articles for some time and cannot for a year - including him is a waste of everyone's time and patience. Homey 01:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not just about that one page but about them all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can exclude him if he wants to be included. He may not want to, of course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He is banned from the RFM articles he's edited and has never edited the articles he's not banned from. Homey 01:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

ie he is not a party to Israeli apartheid or apartheid (disambiguation) by virtue of being banned from editing them and he is not a party to the others by virtue of having never edited them.Homey 01:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You included him in the list of parties. Homey 01:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As I said, I don't see how we can exclude him. If he doesn't want to be involved, he'll say so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is crystal clear that people should say agree or disagree and sign. No comments. Please stick to the rules for once. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you should *invite* him. If you want me to agree to mediation then remove him from the list of parties.Homey 01:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I neither want nor don't want you to agree. I've not been involved in the disputes across these pages, so I don't know all the details, but from what I know, you started the problem, and it was largely you and Zeq who were in dispute, until he was banned from Israeli apartheid. It would be unworkable not to include him in the mediation, because whether listed or not, he is free to list himself, and I don't see how anyone could stop him. But he may not want to go through mediation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Zeq from the list as he cannot be a party to the dispute being unable to edit some of the articles and having never edited the rest. If you are desperate to add another "ally" to your list you can do better in any case. Homey 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As you have posted on Zeq's board I suggest you do so again and dissuade him of the fantasy that he is at all a party to the editing of articles from which he's banned. If you prefer you can simply remove your previous comments. Homey 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you discuss this on the RfM talk page, rather than on my talk page? I am only the secretary here, as it were. I'm not heavily involved in the dispute, don't know all the details, and don't know all the players. I am just going by what was on the RfAr, and that the dispute was largely you and Zeq for a long time. Also, Zeq is still allowed to post his views on the talk page, is allowed to edit the other articles, allowed to vote, allowed to be part of an RfAr. I don't think there are any rules saying a user banned from one page can't be involved in mediation regarding that and related pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As you have posted on Zeq's board I suggest you do so again and dissuade him of the fantasy that he is at all a party to the editing of articles from which he's banned. If you prefer you can simply remove your previous comments. Homey 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How can Zeq be a party to the dispute when he cannot edit the article for a year? Get real. Homey 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Everybody, including the people he's trying to support, have been ignoring him since he was banned. He even tried to start an RFA about being ignored (which was rejected). I don't think you're helping matters by coddling and indulging him. When you coddled him by unbanning after he posted personal details about zero he only went on to try to post personal details about me a few weeks later.Homey 02:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, don't you see how suspicious it is that you are trying to control who else participates in a mediation? If you are interested in seeing this dispute resolved in a mediation, you should be eager to have as many other people, of all points of view, participating in it. 6SJ7 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments removed from the project page

Nagle:

I'd prefer to go ahead with the pending arbitration request. We've already tried mediation. Once the out-of-policy actions have been dealt with, we may be able to make some progress. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Su-Laine Yeo:

In addition to the question of titles raised by SlimVirgin, and the dispute over sources and content within articles that Kim mentioned, there is also the issue of which articles should be placed on Apartheid (disambiguation). This is a high-profile page because History of South Africa in the apartheid era links to it.Su-Laine Yeo 06:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

HOTR:

There needs to be a proper investigation into the factional conduct of Jay, SV and Humus. Mediation cannot accomplish this. There may be some room for mediation in other areas however given the propensity of Humus and Jayjg for unilateral action, in several cases action contrary to consensus, I see no point in mediation unless they agree to curtail their activities and submit to consensus even when they disagree with it. I also think that users who are banned from the contentious articles should not be considered parties to this process and I consider SlimVirgin's decision to invite Zeq to be unfortunate.

I'm also not convinced that this 11th hour attempt at mediation isn't simply a manouver to make the Jayjg/SV/Humus faction seem conciliatory when the ArbComm reviews the case. Why didn't they suggest mediation before and instead of arbitrarily moving Israeli apartheid? And, like Grace Note, I'm not convinced that this isn't a last minute attempt to evade the consequences of their actions. If Humus and SV are sincere they will move Allegations of Israeli apartheid back to Israeli apartheid and allow mediation to decide the issue. If they do that I will take it as a sign of good faith and support mediation. Homey 15:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq:

I agree that there is a group which violates almost everywikipedia policy in order to use wikipedia popularity as a vehicle to push political propeganda. This group violates NPOV, RS and off course edit wat and even use sock puppets to push it;s POV. However, the issues in the content of this article need to be medaited. to start with : What is the propre name of the article ? I suggest we first, all of us, try in good faith to mediate the content issues. Zeq 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note:

I don't see the point of mediation. There was an ongoing discussion and the "other side" ignored that and moved the page anyway. This seems to me to be more a cynical attempt to avoid censure than a reasonable stab at sorting out the issue. The case is not complex at all. The "other side" wish to apply another standard to this page from the one they apply to pages they approve of. I don't see why "our side" should even begin to accept that. As I've noted, while the page on "new antisemitism" is entitled New anti-Semitism, there is no way other minority concepts should be weaselled to suit. I daresay Slim and coparties will win the day, given the prevailing sentiment on Wikipedia, but it's clear that they are in the wrong here and should not gain from any negotiation. Grace Note 23:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7:

Homey, while I believe the move was reasonable and made in good faith, the fact is that on a going-forward basis, the "name" issue is really moot. At the present time the poll is more than 70 percent in favor of the move. Therefore, even if those who moved the article agreed to undo the move, it is almost certain that someone else would feel compelled to move it back to its current name in light of the overwhelming "consensus."

And, Homey, if there is an investigation into anyone's conduct, it is going to have to involve yours as well. If there is an arbitration, your actions are going to be called into question regardless of whether you think you are a party or not. Might it not be better to try to resolve the issue, in an effort to avoid all of that? 6SJ7 01:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence from your side of an actual willingness to compromise on anything. All I see is a desperate desire to avoid having the actions of some people subjected to scrutiny. Tell me one thing you are willing to compromise on? Homey 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"At the present time the poll is more than 70 percent in favor of the move. "

That wasn't the case when the move was implemented. I would have been fine with the move had Humus et al waited a day or so until there was a clear consensus in the poll (indeed, I believe I was the first one to suggest Allegations of Israeli apartheid as a name several weeks ago) but his action in moving the article and his friends' actions in reverting any attempt to reverse that move was unilateral and arrogant and showed a complete disrespect for the process. Humus thought there would be no consensus when he moved the article (he said so rather clearly) and moved it anyway because he personally could not accept the name Israeli apartheid ie when he thought he was going to lose he decided to try and get his way anyway. I don't see the point of rewarding such behaviour. If this goes to Arbitration I may end up getting disciplined for something or another but so will a number of people such as Humus, Jayjg and others who have been relentless in their POV edit warring and manouevering if that helps put an end to the factional manouevering that has attempted to ban any facts that may reflect badly on Israel from being mentioned in wikipedia then maybe it's worth it. The fear they have that this will go to arbcomm is indicative to me of the need to take this to arbcomm even if I end up being one of the people on the block when the axe comes down.

There may be some benefit in taking the content issues to mediation in addition to taking the conduct issues to ArbComm but if you and your faction are arguing that mediation is an alternative to ArbComm then I don't think you're going to get any support outside of your circle. I, for one, am fed up with the shenanigans by Humus, Jay, yourself etc and I think a lot of others are too. It has to end and it's going to end. Homey 04:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just don't get it. Is this an issue about "Who's POV will win" ? After all we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. Homey I'll ask you one question:

• I am banned because you claimed that I (personaly) am disruptive to the article. Even if you are correct about my behaviour does this in any way invalidate my views (or more acuratly: the views I am representing ?) What does views have to do with behaviour ? Don't you want the best article this group of people can write and agree upon. I do. I would never think of exluding you from a mediation which tries to get compromise. As distastfull(to me) as your views are as repulsive(to me personaly) your behaviour is - your views should be heard this is the essesnce of democracy. As for NPOV: If your views represent the majority they have a room, if it is susbsential minority they have a room and if they are of a fringe minory they don't but to asertain this we need to hear all views - including yours: I would never dream of rejecting you from a process which tries to reach compromise. Zeq 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Technical question

Just a technical question here, anyone may feel free to remove it since it is not part of the discussion: If we are using this page for a discussion, why is there an "archive" tag at the top that says not to edit this page? And why is section-editing apparently disabled on this page? (Or do these questions have the same answer?) 6SJ7 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea. I removed the tag. Hope that's the right thing to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I created a new heading to move this out of the way. I notice that with the tag gone, the section-editing links have reappeared. Or maybe I was just missing something earlier. 6SJ7 05:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to delete this little section tomorrow unless someone has an objection. 6SJ7 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Could I ask people to stick to what the page says the rules are, and not keep adding comments? Comments can be left here instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

SlaveCrixus (talk · contribs)

Who is this, as this person added a large number of editors to the apartheid mediation request, of which some have only commented in the talk pages. The acount is brand new, and jumps straight here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What I find equally interesting is that this fairly-obvious sockpuppet has placed a notice on each of the nine editors' talk pages, informing them of both the arbitration and the mediation -- in fact, the arbitration is mentioned first -- and yet the sockpuppet only added their names as parties on the mediation page, not on the arbitration page. One can only speculate on the possible motivations for this series of actions, and on who might be motivated to do so. 6SJ7 01:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the names. It's unfortunate that some people (I'm assuming the same ones) who managed to turn this issue into chaos in the first place continue their efforts with the mediation request. I hope all reasonable people on both sides will stand up against it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the editor added the names as a sockpuppet rather than doing it under his or her own name. I disagree with the inference above, however. There's no reason why one of the editors who openly opposes SV's position would not have made the addition under his or her won name. I suspect the reason for the sockpuppet is that the puppeteer has thus far stayed out of the issue and did not want to make his or her feelings known publicly. I know that some editors are afraid to be open about their views for fear of retribution - at least that's what the mail I've gotten from at least two people suggests. I am curious why the individuals who were added to the list of parties are not thought to be parties to a potential mediation if, in fact, they have edited the article(s) - particularly when SV has decided on her own that one editor who cannot edit the article is a party. What criteria, exactly, did SV use to make her determinations? It seems rather arbitrary. Homey 03:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of compiling a list of the major versus minor players. If you can help with that, it would be appreciated. I mean major and minor over the list of all the articles, and the dispute in general, not any given page. That would include edits to talk pages as well as edits to articles. I know it's hard to be precide and precision isn't needed: just a rough guide. If anyone later objects to whether they've been called major or minor, that can be discussed at that point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The mediation clearly isn't going to happen given that only one "side" is consenting so I don't see the point of wasting my time compiling a list. I just don't understand your decision that the individuals added by the sock are not parties whilst someone who can't edit the article is. But it's really just an academic question at this point. Homey 03:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see, below, you are trying to create a new list from scratch. I appreciate you are trying to compromise. I removed my "vote" on the RFM earlier today and I'm going to stay out of the discussion for the next few days and then take a look and see if there's any movement or if you've managed to persuade anyone who is not an opponent of the articles to join you. Homey 04:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate some help with the list, because I truly have no idea who the major players are. You can let me know by email if you prefer to stay away from these pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

Kim, I've refactored this section to remove names and just include the main issues. People were starting to use it as a soapbox and that's not what it's for. It's intended only as a rough guide to the mediator. There'll be plenty of time for detail if this goes ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement motivation

As I have indicated in my contribution to the Issues to be mediated, the prime issue is content, and not titles, but this seems now to become secondary to the title issue. I think that the current mediation request underestimates the issues at hand. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, please leave it. This will all be discussed with the mediator, if we ever get that far. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, it wont, given your failure to obtain agreement for mediation from anyone outside of your own faction. Perhaps if you expressed a willingness to compromise in the request for mediation there might be more confidence in your willingness to compromise on the actual issues?Homey 03:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is unreal. First, they move the page without any consensus. Then they open a request for mediation that looks like a demand for agreement. Then they remove the names of several editors who don't agree with their view on the case. Now they're demanding that the mediator be allowed to decide whether it's okay for them to remove the names of people who want to participate in the discussion over this page and what is permitted to be discussed. I think we should discuss how come pages that might be considered anti-Israeli-policy have "NPOV" titles, but those that support or describe concepts favourable to Israel and its lobbyists do not.Grace Note 08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving names

Kim, could I ask you please to stop moving, removing, or adding names. I have asked several people for a list of the major players. I can't compile it because I don't know who they are, so I've put out several requests, and then we can compile the list on this page first, and come up with an agreed list. Please don't do it unilaterally. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why has my name been removed? I consider myself a party to this dispute, have clearly contributed to it and intend to do so again. I was duly notified of the RfM and commented. I'm really pissed off. Whoever did it, please put me back and restore my comments. You can't win disputes simply by excising disputants! And Slim, it's not up to you to decide who is or is not a "major player". It smacks very much of a ploy to ensure that "your side" outnumbers the other one significantly, so you can spuriously claim a "consensus" that simply does not exist. Grace Note 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You were notified of the dispute by a sockpuppet account, someone clearly out to cause trouble. Please stop the nonsense about my side and factions. I'm trying with the best will that I can muster to prepare a Request for Mediation and to try to find out who is central to it, and who is not. End of story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, you voted not to be involved in the mediation, so why on earth would you want your name to be added anyway? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Major/central players?

• HOTR
• Zeq
• Jayjg
• KimvdLinde
• Humus sapiens
• Bhouston
• 6SJ7
• SlimVirgin

Minor players?

• CJCurrie
• Pecher
• PinchasC
• Heptor
• Natalinasmpf
• TShilo12
• Vvuppala
• Moshe
• Beneaththelandslide
• Bcrowell
• Bibigon
• Bill Levinson
• ChrisO
• FayssalF
• IZAK
• Leifern
• MPerel
• Nagle
• Timothy Usher

I've asked a few people who the central players are, and the ones currently listed as central/major are the ones that all the lists I received have in common. The other names are names mentioned by some people. Kim, I've put you under minor because not everyone mentioned you, but if you want to move yourself to major, please do. That goes for everyone else. Ditto if you're on the major list, but feel your involvement was peripheral. The names on both lists will be able to participate equally in the mediation; this is just to get an idea of whose participation is necessary for the mediation to be meaningful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, no one mentioned Nagle's name even as minor player. I added his name as a courtesy because he brought the RfAr, but I've checked his contribs and there seem to be hardly any edits during the dispute either to the affected articles or their talk pages. Am I missing them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I did list him at my sorting. He has 32 main space edits, 28 talk page edits, 22 central discussion edits, let alone noticeboard and related pages. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked and couldn't see them, though I did only glance. Can you say which articles mainly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainly Israeli apartheid, and the centralized discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a closer look, and the edits to Israeli apartheid, before the RfM was posted, were just a few between June 23 and 27; ditto on the talk page. If we call that a major contribution, the list of major contributors is going to be very large. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved SlimVirgin and Jayjg into the major players category. SlimVirgin has tons of edits of Israeli apartheid article (and its variants) -- multiples of what I have. SlimVirgin has also been active in telling Homey that he is a partisan. Jayjg has been active in making proposals (which included the merging of the Israeli apartheid article into the Apartheid outside of South Africa), created the Apartheid outside of South Africa article (for what some alleged were strategic reasons) and has repeatly merged the Israeli apartheid into the Apartheid outside of South Africa. I have removed Moshe as a major player -- since he only has a couple edits in the area and was not a major participant on the talk page, I am unsure why he is a major player -- but feel free to re-add him if I am missing something evidence. --Ben Houston 16:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

On a technical note, Ben, I didn't create the Apartheid outside of South Africa article. In fact, it was created on July 10, 2005 by Bcrowell. [3] My first edit to the page was on August 21, 2005. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The above separation of minor and major players is pretty inaccurate. It would be better if we had editing statistics of each individual of the relevant pages, the number of moves each individual has done and the number of AfD's each individual has done. While I like to think of myself as a major player -- I've actually had a very low number of edits to the main articles in question. I think that we just need to engage in a more solid analysis of who is what rather than an arbitrary and subjective division based on our feelings/intuition. --Ben Houston 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I edit that article once in a while, but after the move war started, I stopped editing it entirely, feeling that would just make things worse. Lately I've been making some minor edits to improve readability. (Someone commented on my last edit that "At least the first paragraph is in English now.") Some time ago I wrote the "separation program" section, which, after the usual arguments over nomenclature ("separation fence" vs. "apartheid wall" ended up as "fences and walls"), seems to be reasonably satisfactory to all parties. It's an interesting challenge to write neutrally on this subject. --John Nagle 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

BHouston, can you show me my "tons" of edits to variants of Israeli apartheid? To the best of my knowledge, I edited that article only, mostly between June 24 and 27. Then I came to realize that trying to write a good article was impossible amid the shenanigans. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert as edit counting but just going through the edit history of the main article here [4] I count 25 edits for Bhouston and 62 edits for SlimVirgin. I did a quick manual count thus I may be off by a few on both of those but they are roughly accurate. Like I said, it would be better to have accurate edit counts rather than subjective and OR divisions of who is major and who is minor. (BTW when I refer to variants of the Israeli apartheid article I am making reference to the fairly dynamic nature of its name.) --Ben Houston 17:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit counts don't really tell us what's what. Someone making 60 minor, good edits is less of a player than someone making 25 troublesome, aggressive edits. If you want to count edits, I'm fine with it, but if you've had so little input, please take yourself off the major player list. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: you do seem to be agreeing with me that the current division is fairly arbitrary and problematic. The second part of your comment is just an retaliatory false dilemma. Overall, it shows that (1) you are involved in the dispute and (2) you view me as an opposing party (and you insinuate that I make "troublesome, aggressive edits".) --Ben Houston 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make it more objective and do it by numbers, here are the figures for Allegations of Israeli apartheid (formerly Israeli apartheid); Talk:Allegations of IA; Apartheid outside of SA; Talk:Apartheid outside of SA; Apartheid disambiguation; and Central discussions. (For some reason, the edit counter won't give me a count for the talk page of Central discussions or Apartheid disambig.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Homey: 754 edits
• Zeq: 316
• Jayjg: 207
• Kim: 137
• Humus: 130
• BHouston: 128
• 6SJ7: 112
• SlimVirgin: 90
• Isarig: 80
• Nagle: 80
• CJCurrie: 47
• IZAK: 33

On the basis of these figures, I've removed Isarig, and would normally remove my own, but as I'm compiling the list, I won't. I would say the current division is fairly sound. Bear in mind that this division has no bearing on who can take part in the mediation, and once it starts up, people won't be given more or less weight on the basis of it. It's only so that the medcom can see whose participation is necessary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on those stats my addition of prior addition of Zeq, Jayjg and SlimVirgin to the major players and removal of Moshe from the major players list was fairly in line with the general edit counts. IMO Kim should probably be considered a major player as well even though she was a mediator. --Ben Houston 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim's name is on the major list now, as she has 137 edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

List of major players

I've started the list. If you want to add one, please give your reason. Ditto if you want to remove one. Please do it here, and not on the project page until we reach some kind of agreement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is out of order. See my comment above. You cannot simply marginalise anyone you don't want to be a disputant. You ignored the forming consensus on the discussion page for this issue; now you seem to be trying to narrow the dispute so that a deal is made that does not include everyone concerned. Grace Note 08:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware that you have been involved in this dispute much, if at all. At least, no one who has offered a list of the major players so far has mentioned your name.

Anyone who wants to be involved will be able to be, but I've been advised to draw up a list of the major players, and so that's what I'm trying to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked the edit histories, and you haven't edited any of the pages concerned. Not a single edit. And you said you didn't want the mediation anyway. So I can't see why you would suddenly want to be called a "major player," or even a minor one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see real solid edit count statistics on all article and talk pages involved. This would be solid evidence rather than subjective. --Ben Houston 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just gave them above. Not for every single article, but for the main ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Authorship of A Course in Miracles mediation

I've never been a part of a RfM before. This particular dispute has been sitting on the page for about a week. I am wondering what the next step is. Thanks. Ste4k 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

At a point in the near future, if all parties have agreed, the case will be opened. It is usually done by the chairman of the Committee, but the position is currently empty, so things are taking a bit more time while we select a new chair. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A note: Since one of the involved users has left Wikipedia, the mediation is a moot point anyway, since mediations do require two parties. So I would advise you to just concentrate on improving the articles and seeking consensus with other editors and other general pleasantness, and not worry about the mediation. Even if it occurs, there's nothing more to be done until the mediation committee initiates it anyway. Kickaha Ota 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been opened and is now waiting for a committee memeber (or qualified non-committee member) to volunteer to mediate it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Shows how much I know. Me == t3h n00b. Kickaha Ota 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Question, I answered those questions earlier, but maybe I shouldn't have. I'll delete them if they aren't supposed to be answered. Looking at the other entries on the page it looked as if that was what was supposed to be done. Are we to watch this page for changes? Or is there some notification? (Me noob >= Kickaha Ota noob). Ste4k 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, please. I think I figured it out. Let me know if I should answer something on the open-case page, please. Thanks. Ste4k 17:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with User:Tajik

Please have a look at People of Afghanistan, Hazara. This user is vandalizing by changing population numbers to what he thinks is true rather than what most resources say, etc. I believe we are having a dispute. Thanx User:hadi1121 11:30, 11 July 2006 (EST)

If you believe that Tajik will agree to mediation, then you should post your request according to the proper formatting. You should look at dispute resolution steps first, though, because you're supposed to at least try to resolve it before turning to RFM. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Gayd Cdn

This is not so much a request for mediation as a notice to call to the attention of the mediation board that the user identified above seems to me to be behaving in a manner which is not necessarily in the best interests of wikipedia, and in a less than polite manner. He has only been an active wikipedian for some thirty days now, and he instantly placed himself in a position where he will decide on the importance of the works of others. It is my sincere hope and belief that someone will seek to contact him and perhaps guide him in learning how to become an effective and considerate "deletionist," or to perhaps involve himself in other matters which he might be better suited for. I would also strongly suggest that you look over his page of "uncivil" comments, as he seems to find that notifying him of his own uncivil behavior is in and of itself uncivil. Badbilltucker 13:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• As the subject of this request, I wish to advise that my name is incorrect in the request, it is Gay Cdn. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello....

Is there anybody in there? (Just nod if you can hear me...)

Seriously, is the Mediation Committee active? I see that User:Essjay has been inactive for about a week and a number of people have asked about the status of Mediation cases... anyone? Thanks, KWH 00:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Among other things, Essjay is busy with the board elections right now. Other than that MedCom has suffered from a chronic shortage of volunteers. --Dhartung | Talk 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is someone in charge here?

Things seem to be not functioning here right now. Is someone in charge? JoshuaZ 02:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that emotion: I've had a request for mediation (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Qanun) up for a couple days now, and haven't heard a peep. Anyone home? +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this'll get someone's attention ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk • contribs)

That {{helpme}} didn't last long. I was considering putting an {{inactive}} on the project page, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN#Requests_for_mediation_has_ground_to_a_halt for more information. I apologize for the delay and backlog, and will try and get things rolling again immediately on the mailing list. Thanks for your patience! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes has been closed successfully with a unanimous agreement on a set of principles for editing Lost episode articles. Thatcher131 03:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

hinduism

I feel the article project "Raj Yog as a path to realise God" is in-correct. HeBhagawan and A.Pandey obtain support against me. From the language of A.Pandey that he single handedly fought vandals and edited Jana Gana Mana & Vande Mataram and my checking of history and discussion of both articles, A.Pandey has done little, so I believe that they are sock puppets. I request to check the discussion of Hinduism and protect me from bullying for maintaining article of their choice.Swadhyayee 16:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on "content removal"

"Move or remove any content under any circumstances. Content removal is restricted to members of the Mediation Committee." - Does this mean the RfM or the article involved in the RfM? I assume the RfM? - Debuskjt

It might help if I knew what you were quoting, but I think it's pretty safe to assume this is referring to material in the RfM. Moving probably means archiving... removing would most likely be either a) content that should not be in a request (before mediation begins) or b) refactoring intended to de-escalate the dispute (after mediation begins). I hope that helps. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Instructions, under the "You must not" section. - Debuskjt 02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is definately only referring to the RfM page. Things that would be more likely to be moved/removed would be debates occurring on the RfM page before mediation is accepted, or complaints about a particular user (justified or not, since we aren't interested in judging). Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please initiate mediation on Morocco

Assistance I made a RfM proposal for the Morocco article, and any editors actively interested in the discussion have agreed (several were involved in tertiary parts of the discussion.) Please go forward with mediation. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Since User:Essjay doesn't seem to be responding, who should we talk to about problems with mediation? DJ Clayworth 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could try anyone on Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Active Mediators. Of the mediators currently on that list, Flcelloguy and Guanaco have been around the longest. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Please, always feel free to bring any comments, questions, or complaints you have to any of us, myself included. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, or email me. As for the Morocco mediation, I will send an email to the mediation list and see who is available, and hopefully get that started soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I opened your case and listed it under open tasks. Now you just need a mediator. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as a head's up

To all MedCom members:

I've done a lot of cleanup today. All reject cases have been moved to the archives, and their respective case pages have been set up for Speedy Deletion. I've also cleaned up the "Current" cases category. All cases currently listed under "Open Tasks" are under the open cases. All the closed cases that were still listed as open have been moved to the correct category. I plan to clean up all of the pending cases and get them listed later today. That is all. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I listed all pending cases as well, rejecting those that were either not listed properly or failed to agree to mediation. Everything is currently where it should be. All cases that are open are in the open category and are listed under open tasks. All that are pending have been listed under the main page waiting for acceptance/denial. All that are closed have been listed as closed. All rejected have been archived and set for speedy deletion. Now we're finally caught up in terms of page maintenence again. Now to just mediate the actual disputes. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

UGLA edits

I have been keeping up with the UGLA entry since it was created and I thought it wasn't too bad. But now it seems that an actual member of the UGLA continues to delete the entry and post UGLA propaganda there. I have tried to talk about it on the talk section and said information like that shouldn't be posted on wikipedia. However he continues to ignore and rewrite the entry. I need help with this.

Informal mediation

Please note that I have agreed to assist as an informal mediator at Free Republic. Some initial progress is being made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of us, but you don't have to tell us when you take on an information mediation. If there is anything we can do for you, however, please let us know. Essjay (Talk) 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Is it possible to have someone mediate a page that has been deleted by a user?

Mediator forced off of Wikipedia mid-stream

What do we do when our mediator left mid-stream? See Talk:Muhammad/Mediation.Proabivouac 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I'm sorry to hear that Ars Scriptor has left, and also that you have lost your mediator (in this important topic). The case appears to be a Mediation Cabal case, not a Mediation Commitee case (which is what this page is about). You can probably get help from the Mediation Cabal co-ordinators at the coordination desk of the MEDCAB. Hope this helps, Martinp23 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting someone with experience

In this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_Goku_%28Dragon_Ball%29 I saw someone labelled the name '孫悟空' as Japanese? But it is actually Chinese, the Japanese name is 'カカロット' and it is Kanji, could someone solve this problem and see if my edit is good enough? Because it is definitely Chinese as my language 'Korean' has Chinese/Korean = Hanji, so I know whats Chinese and whats Japanese aswell. ( Seong0980 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) )

This matter has been resolved - see this diff. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0

this page is not showing up on the request for mediation.

in my experience, this page is the absolute most diffcult page to use on wikipedia. It is a nightmare to use. I made some minor fixes, but in my opinion, it truly needs an overhaul. Travb (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Curiousity

Is unwillingness to agree to mediation the primary reason for rejection of requests? Goes this mean I should get the consent of other editors in the dispute before bothering to apply? WilyD 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In almost all rejected cases, the reason is the failure of the parties to respond on the RfM page. It can be helpful to gain the consent of others before applying, but they'll still have to sign the RfM page. Thanks, Martinp23 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer to mediate

Although I am not a member of the mediation committee, I am willing to volunteer to mediate a case (Goguryeo). However, I could not find a clear descriptions on the proper steps to volunteer. Do I just edit the request page (under the confirmation of the acceptance of the case) and then add my name in the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Open Tasks template? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in helping out!  : ) You could nominate yourself to become a member of the Mediation Committee. A nominee can take a case in order to allow the Committee to observe his or her mediation skills. Please note that it is generally considered good to inform the participants that you are not a member of the Mediation Committee, and allow them to consent or not consent to you mediating.

As an alternative, you could consider helping the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation group.

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have prior mediation experience? Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo, it seems to involve a large number of participants, and is probably going to be a difficult case. If you are new to mediating, I would recommend starting with something easier. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 05:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have posted in the article's talk page to ask for the consent of the participants in allowing me to mediate. This mediation task will not likely be done by myself alone. It has been requested that several mediators (preferably a dispassionate user with Korean background, suggested by a user in Talk:Goguryeo) to mediate this case. I am active in both WP:CHINA and WP:KOREA, and have dealt with various disputes before. Although this would be my first official mediation, I believe I have sufficient amount of experience to resolve this case. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

unassigned cases

There are a few unassigned cases for 2 weeks now. Are you all short mediators? jbolden1517^Talk 06:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We were, but the problem seems to be levelling out now. I'm trying to rouse the sleeping giant on the mailing list. Daniel Bryant 09:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The general waiting time is one month, although it tends to be shorter than this ~ Anthøny 21:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO that is much too long. Are you OK with even 2 weeks? jbolden1517^Talk 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the general waiting time should be around a week, maximum. As I said, we've been short on mediators recently due to inactivity, although the problem is rectifying itself through discussion on our private mailing list as we speak. Daniel 07:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation as a Dispute Creation

Here is a cautionary tale: A person whose real name is not PrimaDonnaWikipedian wanted to escalate an issue involving himself. Being an industrious person, PrimaDonnaWikipedian tried hard to provoke everyone by attacking Wikipedia policies using obscene speech on his user page, complaining on a talk page that there is a malicious campaign afoot against his work, and staging a grand walk-out where he declared that Wikipedia will be the loser. Alas, no one seemed offended and PrimaDonnaWikipedian came back determined to try harder. This time, thanks to his persistence in ignoring WP:AGF and WP:NPA he managed to provoke an editor to WP:RPA. At this point an ordinary person might have stopped to reflect on his own actions but not our hero PrimaDonnaWikipedian! Now at last he had an issue to escalate: Is removing personal attack the same as refactoring, which shall not be done when the writer objects (Wikipedia policy) ? His shibboleth became Let my insults stand! Our story could have ended here were it not that PrimaDonnaWikipedian contrived to combine his complaint with a litigious demand about obligations under GNU FDL of all Wikipedia editors to one editor (that can of worms is still awaiting mediation), and in case you wondered, there was in all this noise an actual question about page content, but only PrimaDonnaWikipedia claimed there was any dispute about it. No worries, this could all be stuff for the Mediation Committee to spend time on!

Enter DanielTheMediator.

Daniel: Agree thou both upon my mediating? Before thy answer know that only answers "agree" or "disagree" are permitted!

PrimaDonnaWikipedian: Agree

BlueEyedInnocentWikipedian: Agree

Daniel: Ahah! I see a dispute!

PrimaDonnaWikipedian: That's what I've been saying all along and (pointing) that is the malicious one!

BlueEyedInnocentWikipedian: Who, me? I haven't disputed anything yet nor do I want to.

Daniel: in signing up for mediation (by agreeing on the RfM), you were saying "We are in a dispute about the issues listed, please help us to find a resolution".

Wikipedian's calm your fears because this was only a story and nothing could really happen like this, ....uh except that last line. Does that worry you? Cuddlyable3 10:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I really have no idea what you are talking about. Could you perhaps provide links to the dispute in question, if there is one? ~ Anthøny 10:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Anthøny. The sad part of the story is that falsely assigning a declaration to a person who did not, could not and never wanted to say it is a violation of his right to free speech. You ask me for a link so you can see what goes on in a particular mediation, but since I have quoted words that may or not have been said by a mediator named Daniel→♦ I suggest we first try to get an honest account from Daniel→♦. Hello Daniel→♦, are you there? Cuddlyable3 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

By agreeing to mediation you're saying, "User X and I disagree about something. Help us solve our problem." Andre (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Andre. There is a difference between disagreeing and disputing. For example you and I might disagree on an interpretation of the Torah but I trust that neither of us would be so foolish as to make a spectacle of ourselves disputing about it.

The example mediator in the story became part of something that enables a disgruntled PrimaDonnaWikipedian to use a RfM to bully anyone into choosing between an adversarial and a compromisingly negative position. I call that a petty abuse which can eventually rot Wikipedia as much as any vandal. Cuddlyable3 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cuddlyable3, it seems to me that this is just a difference of opinion about phrasing. A lot of people view the terms dispute and disagreement as synonymous. I would certain say that someone who disagreed with a proposed course of action disputed the action proposed. In this case, I don't think it a stretch to say that the parties were in dispute about the image that should be used on the article. Dispute here just means disagreement, I'm not sure what additional element you are ascribing to it. Certainly none of the definitions of "dispute" that I have seen implies that someone who disputes something makes a fool out of themselves - one can dispute calmly and rationally as well as hotly and irately. WjBscribe 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello WjBscribe, thank you for looking in the right direction on this matter, towards whether I am "just oversensitive" to phrasing. I have reason to be sensitive to phrases that someone else presumes to put in my mouth. To dispute (verb) means to contend with words while To disagree describes a mental state that one hopefully knows how to handle. You hint at there being a lot of people who can't or won't see a difference, which to me sounds like a lack of impulse control. Aren't such people rather liable to rush to ACT on their disagreements in ways that they regret afterwards?

Example 1: I would certainly disagree that "I would certain say...." is grammatical English, but I could easily have chosen not to dispute that detail with you.

Example 2: If we were fine-tuning a Wikipedia subject page and you wanted "I would certain say..." to stand there, I think it would be sensible for me to dispute that particular text with you. If however I make as much fuss disputing about it as I am doing here in this discussion then I make myself look foolish. But it is worth sacrificing my pride to show you by these examples that I agree with you that disputing is an action that may be calm and rational, or hot and irate.

I do think it an unreasonable claim to say that I was "in dispute" about the image that should be used in the article, when one can see me posting before the RfM that I intended no action on my part until a consensus was gained. Even attributing a passive disagreement to me is no more than guessing how you would feel if someone reverted your work, and you are not me. Cuddlyable3 19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the comparisons between me and a mythical dispute resolution creature coming. For some reason, I find it refreshingly pleasant. There is nothing to discuss here - by agreeing to an RfM, you are wishing to seek assistance in resolving a dispute. A party has the right to disagree on any grounds, and mediation won't proceed. This includes grounds that "I don't believe there is a dispute with regards to the article". Any party can withdraw their support for a mediation even after if it has been accepted on any grounds, as well, just as Cuddlyable3 has done at the RfM. Really, quite a generic situation.

The idea that an RfM can be used to "bully" someone is laughable, because of the principle of a) privelige and b) voluntary nature. If you're being "bullied", just withdraw from the mediation. And an RfM can't be used to bully people after you've withdrawn from it because we protect the priveliged nature of mediation (see WP:M). So, no bullying at all. Nothing further here to discuss. Daniel→♦ 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel for responding here. Knowing that you are now watching and free to comment lets me confirm what is probably already obvious:

• This is a direct quote from you in a mediation yesterday: in signing up for mediation (by agreeing on the RfM), you were saying "We are in a dispute about the issues listed, please help us to find a resolution"
• I have claimed that in making that statement you became part of a bullying abuse.

You may find the lack of myth now less pleasant, or the idea of bullying less laughable when you see it arise from your own actions. At WP:M the first words are "The basic philosophy of Wikipedia is to reach a consensus in decision-making". Reaching a consensus demands time, tolerance and above all free expression for all. For example, I write here while acutely aware that you, Anthøny, Andre and potentially every present and future wikipedian sees, and may comment on what I say. You cannot forbid them to say anything over one word.

BTW you emphasise the "priveliged[sic] nature of mediation" as though either party in the actual case wanted secrecy or needs it now or after. They don't. You Daniel were the one who entered the scene privileged to ask me a loaded dualistic question, and a privilege is not to be enjoyed without an ethical duty for the enjoyer. Did you bother to make yourself aware that:

• I made a diagram
• One editor welcomed it with "It's an excellent diagram you've put up"
• Only one editor was negative, and he sounds like PrimaDonnaWikipedian in the story
• I proposed to WAIT and accept whichever diagram gets more consensus

The above which contains no wish on my part to enter a dispute can be seen by anyone on the relevant talk page but I don't believe you cared to let any such information distract you from being manipulated by PrimaDonnaWikipedian into staging a dispute. Why should one eager to be a mediator not rush to get stuck into a disputation? You asked me whether I accepted mediation on an issue which was expressed as a question of preference between two diagrams. This was exactly the question that had been opened already to ALL EDITORS so of course I would agree that an extra voice would help us. It has only become clear later to me, BlueEyedInnocentWikipedian, that your mindset Daniel is to categorise everyone who answers your question as a disputant or a mediation denier. That must give a warm glowing feeling, to know you are so neutrally good, and chilling the on-going article discussion with a formal mediation banner for a while (BTW why is the banner still there?) is a trivial sacrifice, isn't it? Once the mediation started one could have expected the mediator to show some interest in the agreed issue. When PrimaDonnaWikipedian expressed that he found it pointless to discuss the question on which he, not I, had sought mediation, why did the mediator not release the parties? Having answered the issue question, and seeing no other relevant question for me, I had to register a complaint about the mediator's exclusive interest in planning a new diagram for PrimaDonnaWikipedian to develop, and release myself. Sorry Daniel but this gladiator never agreed to get in a fight with anyone. I guess you didn't ask properly.Cuddlyable3 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When you accused me of bullying by stating Committee procedure, I stopped reading. Thread archived, this is a pointless discussion. Daniel→♦ 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide

Not having filed a request before, if I made a mistake with this request: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bosnian Genocide please let me know. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You have filed correctly, but the Mediation has been rejected for reasons unrelated to your formatting. AGK (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

More information, please

Please mention the required tags and their arguments on this page. I notified Talk:Duchy of Pless twice, because I didn't know, until I looked atound, that there were mandatory notication tags to be filed by the complaintant (rather than, say, the bot). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good day. I'm not sure I understand your enquiry—can I ask that you rephrase it, in order to allow for me to provide you with assistance. Thank you for your patience, AGK (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help

Are there clear instructions anywhere about how to file? I've created a page but it's not showing up in the list. Also, are there tags we need to use to inform the others named? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a case, authored by Daniel, is as good a guide as I've seen. If you still have any queries after reviewing that guide, by all means, raise them below (or directly on my talk page), with an angle to specifics, as oppose to a general enquiry, and I will do my best to assist you. Regards, AGK (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

A case involving Reproductive rights and Female genital cutting has recently been accepted (but not assigned). Would it be possible to get these pages protected for the duration? Are there tags to add to the article about it being involved with mediation? Thanks! --Phyesalis (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the three parties in the same mediation. I weakly prefer that the pages have a template indicating that there is a dispute (or that there is a related mediation, or the usual template associated with page protection if there is page protection) rather than no template; and I weakly oppose protecting the pages. Phyesalis has requested that I not edit the pages and I believe I haven't edited them in the many days (weeks?) since that request was made. I haven't placed dispute templates because that would be editing the page. Some of the disputed material which Phyesalis added (or a form of it) still remains in each of the articles, i.e. "Various reproductive rights have been claimed as human rights in international human rights documents" (RR) and "FGC transcends religion as it is primarily a cultural practice." (FGC). The presence of this material in the articles is an argument against protecting these pages in response to Phyesalis' request. Phyesalis doesn't seem to have stated any reason for the page protection. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that - I thought being in the middle of mediation was enough. However, User:Blackworm has not ceased editing the articles involved in our dispute and has been involved in efforts to try and get one article moved to a different name despite the fact that straw poll previously determined the article should remain as is due to NPOV concerns. Is that sufficient? --Phyesalis (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are at the right location to request protection on an article currently undergoing Formal Mediation, although I do recognise your logic: according to the Mediation policy, Mediators are not "Security Guards", which effectively means they do not undertake technical actions in an attempt to enforce the minimal standards of behaviour expected of a party in Mediation.

Parties are expected to take it upon themselves to refrain from disruptive editing for the duration of the Mediation, lest the Mediation fail and a resolution become yet more difficult to reach. It is essential that that is respected, and the Mediators of a case may not use protection, or any other action, to force that on the parties, in accordance with the voluntary nature of Mediation.

If the edit warring becomes a problem to such an extent that the article itself is suffering disruption as a result, then it may be wise to request protection at this page, where an uninvolved Administrator can handle the query. That is my opinion, anyway—other Committee members may belong to alternative schools of thought. AGK (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any edit warring. Blackworm has continued editing the pages involved, but has shown patience in refraining from reverting material disputed in this mediation; the two sentences I mentioned above are still in the articles. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Status Update

Would a member of the mediation committee be so kind as to provide a status update on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism? Thanks. csloat (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a slight increase in the time being taken between case acceptance and Mediator acceptance. Obviously this is not ideal—I will make a post to the Mailing List, noting the current case backlog. In the meanwhile, please accept my personal apologies. Regards, AGK (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I broke something

I made a typo for the technocracy movement request, and then moved the page to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Technocracy movement 2. I moved it back when I realized I probably wasn't supposed to do that.-Wafulz (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If I am picking you up correct, and there has never been a Request for Mediation under the title "Technocracy Movement" until now, and you moved the request to that page without overwriting any previous requests, then you're spot on.

However, previous cases should not be "overwritten" by new requests along the same lines, but rather the new request given the same title, but a "2" appended (or the correct, relevant number, with consideration to previous requests). AGK (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)